On the cover of Tom Hagler, Jr.'s book Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth is the subtitle:
"God’s sovereignty versus man’s free will...
the doctrinal paradox is solved by an ancient Bible doctrine."
Supposedly, the great question of how the seeming tension of God's sovereignty and the will of man is solved by the conditional time salvation argumentation, here referred to as an "ancient" bible doctrine.
Yes, it is so ancient that it was unheard of until the 19th century! What lack of respect does this show to those great minds of the past who really wrestled with this issue, when the solution all along supposedly lies in treating practically all passages dealing with human responsibility as having no place in the eternal salvation of God's people!
Thursday, July 4, 2013
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Hindsight From A Former Hardshell II
Part Two - Stumbling Early
As a young minister in the Primitive Baptist Church I was privileged to have something that I fear many in the same situation do not. I had a pastor and father in the ministry who took me under his wing. Perhaps it’s just my particular locale, but I noticed that not a few young elders are ordained to the ministry and promptly let loose without the guidance that they need. Hyper-Calvinism has affected this people in so many areas by abating their sense of responsibility, I feel that some of the older elders shrug off giving counsel to the newly-ordained under the pretence of ”God doesn’t need my help” or misapply the truth that one man can’t teach another man to preach. In my latter years among them, I noticed a few young men who were being considered as possible candidates to the ministry. At the time I did not think they had reached the point where they should be ordained. If ever they should be, I can remember thinking that they would simply be turned loose into the “full work” of the gospel ministry. Unfortunately, when this is the practice of an order which, generally speaking, has gone to extremes against formal education, their preachers become vulnerable to the accepted interpretative grid imposed on the scriptures, and will likely stumble right out of the gate.
While some of this was true with me, I was at least blessed with a pastor who lived close by and was more than willing to meet with me one-on-one. We used to sit together in his den and discuss matters of doctrine. I can specifically recall asking him very early about Romans 10, and being told that it had nothing to do with eternal salvation. Paul just wanted his Jewish brethren to be saved from the error of their way was the response I got. Thus, I was being guided into the paradigm of time salvation, a teaching that would dominate my mind and make me guilty of eisegesis for several years. He loaned me a copy of The Writings of the Late Elder John Leland. Having never heard of him, I simply assumed that he was "in succession" with us, for what other reason could my pastor have for sharing it. I only wish now that I would have spent more time in it than I did. Even if I did however, it may not have made any difference. Seeing that I wasn’t yet fully aware of everything that clashed with Hardshellism, I would have seen no incompatibility with how he prayed for the lost or viewed the gospel as the means of salvation. If I had, would I have been delivered from error at a much earlier age? I remember seeing on my pastor’s bookshelf a copy of Dr. John Gill’s commentary as well, along with his Body of Divinity. This was the first time I had heard of the learned theologian. Much the same as with Elder Leland, if I would have known the peculiar points of difference between Hardshellism and Calvinism, I would have seen them in his writings and maybe started off more sound in the bible than I did. John Gill is indeed a very interesting name in this discussion. I can recall his name occasionally mentioned in sermons or idle conversations, and not a few of the elders have a copy of his commentary. So it must be that he is the great champion of Hardshellism, right? The primary support for this claim is that Gill changed his position on regeneration from mediate to immediate, and that therefore he became “in succession” with them. This is not only false but avoids the real issue at hand. Even if it could be proven that Gill changed his mind on this, so what? Immediate regeneration is proof of Hardshellism only when it is coupled with optional gospel conversion. Otherwise, we will have simply placed Gill in the ordo salutis camp. From there we would then have to determine as to whether he held to a logical or temporal order in the occurrence of regeneration and gospel conversion. The only way Gill, or anyone else for that matter, could ever be said to imbibe Conditionalism is to show where he abandoned his views on absolute predestination (a whole nother task) and believed that some sinners who were regenerated by the immediate operation of the Holy Spirit were not converted at the exact same moment and never would be. In other words, they never heard the gospel, not just at the initial spark of the new birth.
I may be getting ahead of myself, but soon after leaving this order a few years ago there was a small attempt to win me back. A local elder copied an excerpt of Dr. Gill's comments on some remote passage in Lamentations in which the learned scholar used the expression "temporal salvation", as if to suggest he imbibed this modern novelty. He sent this to me via email, and a short discussion ensued. I asked the elder to see what Gill has to say on the passages which really matter; those texts that are pivotal in the controversy of Hardshellism vs. Calvinism. I'm not shocked that I received no response on how the learned scholar handled those bible passages which yoke the gospel with salvation (e.g. Romans 1:16; Romans 11:14; 2 Thes. 2:13). Knowing what I do now, I have no hesitation whatsoever in saying that if Dr. Gill or John Leland were alive today, they would not even be allowed to join the church, much less be “invited into the stands”. The claim that these men are "in line" with the present generation is a woeful deception; successful among the lay people who either fail to test the claim or know not their specific beliefs which contradict present-day conditionalism (e.g. praying for the lost, preaching to the lost, how key verses are interpreted).
Getting back to me, it was not long into my spiritual journey before I became aware of some of these great giants of the Calvinistic faith such as Gill, Spurgeon, or A.W. Pink. As expected I would filter their writings, ignoring what I thought was bad, and keeping only the good. I was extremely puzzled as to how the Prince of Preachers, for instance, could preach such a lovely discourse on the sovereign grace of God only to wad it all up and throw it out the window in the last minute by inviting the people to repent and believe in Christ. How could this phenomenal gift not see his contradictory position? I found the same sort of thing when I gleaned through Dr. Gill’s commentary or when reading the writings of Pink. At one moment they would state the truth of God’s sovereignty in salvation; in the very next, they would appear to me as "Arminian”. Of course, as I would come to learn, they were not mistaken at all. It was the man standing in the mirror who was carrying election and predestination to the point of fatalism. It was I who thought God’s will of decree did away with any perceptive will telling me that I was to preach the gospel to every creature. One of the most humbling moments for me, therefore, was the day when I could read one of the sermons of blessed Spurgeon or any other who did not throw to the wind their responsibility in light of God’s sovereignty, but strove to maintain their balance.
They were right. I was wrong.
As a young minister in the Primitive Baptist Church I was privileged to have something that I fear many in the same situation do not. I had a pastor and father in the ministry who took me under his wing. Perhaps it’s just my particular locale, but I noticed that not a few young elders are ordained to the ministry and promptly let loose without the guidance that they need. Hyper-Calvinism has affected this people in so many areas by abating their sense of responsibility, I feel that some of the older elders shrug off giving counsel to the newly-ordained under the pretence of ”God doesn’t need my help” or misapply the truth that one man can’t teach another man to preach. In my latter years among them, I noticed a few young men who were being considered as possible candidates to the ministry. At the time I did not think they had reached the point where they should be ordained. If ever they should be, I can remember thinking that they would simply be turned loose into the “full work” of the gospel ministry. Unfortunately, when this is the practice of an order which, generally speaking, has gone to extremes against formal education, their preachers become vulnerable to the accepted interpretative grid imposed on the scriptures, and will likely stumble right out of the gate.
While some of this was true with me, I was at least blessed with a pastor who lived close by and was more than willing to meet with me one-on-one. We used to sit together in his den and discuss matters of doctrine. I can specifically recall asking him very early about Romans 10, and being told that it had nothing to do with eternal salvation. Paul just wanted his Jewish brethren to be saved from the error of their way was the response I got. Thus, I was being guided into the paradigm of time salvation, a teaching that would dominate my mind and make me guilty of eisegesis for several years. He loaned me a copy of The Writings of the Late Elder John Leland. Having never heard of him, I simply assumed that he was "in succession" with us, for what other reason could my pastor have for sharing it. I only wish now that I would have spent more time in it than I did. Even if I did however, it may not have made any difference. Seeing that I wasn’t yet fully aware of everything that clashed with Hardshellism, I would have seen no incompatibility with how he prayed for the lost or viewed the gospel as the means of salvation. If I had, would I have been delivered from error at a much earlier age? I remember seeing on my pastor’s bookshelf a copy of Dr. John Gill’s commentary as well, along with his Body of Divinity. This was the first time I had heard of the learned theologian. Much the same as with Elder Leland, if I would have known the peculiar points of difference between Hardshellism and Calvinism, I would have seen them in his writings and maybe started off more sound in the bible than I did. John Gill is indeed a very interesting name in this discussion. I can recall his name occasionally mentioned in sermons or idle conversations, and not a few of the elders have a copy of his commentary. So it must be that he is the great champion of Hardshellism, right? The primary support for this claim is that Gill changed his position on regeneration from mediate to immediate, and that therefore he became “in succession” with them. This is not only false but avoids the real issue at hand. Even if it could be proven that Gill changed his mind on this, so what? Immediate regeneration is proof of Hardshellism only when it is coupled with optional gospel conversion. Otherwise, we will have simply placed Gill in the ordo salutis camp. From there we would then have to determine as to whether he held to a logical or temporal order in the occurrence of regeneration and gospel conversion. The only way Gill, or anyone else for that matter, could ever be said to imbibe Conditionalism is to show where he abandoned his views on absolute predestination (a whole nother task) and believed that some sinners who were regenerated by the immediate operation of the Holy Spirit were not converted at the exact same moment and never would be. In other words, they never heard the gospel, not just at the initial spark of the new birth.
I may be getting ahead of myself, but soon after leaving this order a few years ago there was a small attempt to win me back. A local elder copied an excerpt of Dr. Gill's comments on some remote passage in Lamentations in which the learned scholar used the expression "temporal salvation", as if to suggest he imbibed this modern novelty. He sent this to me via email, and a short discussion ensued. I asked the elder to see what Gill has to say on the passages which really matter; those texts that are pivotal in the controversy of Hardshellism vs. Calvinism. I'm not shocked that I received no response on how the learned scholar handled those bible passages which yoke the gospel with salvation (e.g. Romans 1:16; Romans 11:14; 2 Thes. 2:13). Knowing what I do now, I have no hesitation whatsoever in saying that if Dr. Gill or John Leland were alive today, they would not even be allowed to join the church, much less be “invited into the stands”. The claim that these men are "in line" with the present generation is a woeful deception; successful among the lay people who either fail to test the claim or know not their specific beliefs which contradict present-day conditionalism (e.g. praying for the lost, preaching to the lost, how key verses are interpreted).
Getting back to me, it was not long into my spiritual journey before I became aware of some of these great giants of the Calvinistic faith such as Gill, Spurgeon, or A.W. Pink. As expected I would filter their writings, ignoring what I thought was bad, and keeping only the good. I was extremely puzzled as to how the Prince of Preachers, for instance, could preach such a lovely discourse on the sovereign grace of God only to wad it all up and throw it out the window in the last minute by inviting the people to repent and believe in Christ. How could this phenomenal gift not see his contradictory position? I found the same sort of thing when I gleaned through Dr. Gill’s commentary or when reading the writings of Pink. At one moment they would state the truth of God’s sovereignty in salvation; in the very next, they would appear to me as "Arminian”. Of course, as I would come to learn, they were not mistaken at all. It was the man standing in the mirror who was carrying election and predestination to the point of fatalism. It was I who thought God’s will of decree did away with any perceptive will telling me that I was to preach the gospel to every creature. One of the most humbling moments for me, therefore, was the day when I could read one of the sermons of blessed Spurgeon or any other who did not throw to the wind their responsibility in light of God’s sovereignty, but strove to maintain their balance.
They were right. I was wrong.
Saturday, June 1, 2013
Hindsight From A Former Hardshell
Part I - Joining the Conditionalists
In the summer of 1995 the Lord arrested me. I can still remember sitting at the breakfast table telling my father that I wanted to be baptized. He called the pastor of the local church we had been attending and told him the good news. In order to be immersed I was told that I would have to first submit myself for membership. That meant walking the aisle with sweaty palms, all eyes focused on me.
At the time that I came forward for membership at Pine Level Primitive Baptist Church in the small town of Atmore, AL, I knew very little of the Bible. All I knew was what I had been hearing from the pulpit seemed to agree with the scriptural presentation that sinners were saved by the sovereign grace of God, Ephesians 2:8 being my favorite text. Being a young convert at 19 years of age, I was not concerned with matters of deep theology although I was firmly convinced that Arminianism was wrong. What occupied my mind was probably the same as that of many new converts. I simply knew that I was a different person than I was before, having been made a believer in God and His Son. I used to go to work with a smile on my face, a bump in my step, a summery feeling in my breast, thinking that Satan couldn't touch me with a 10-foot pole.
I continued attending church, growing slowly in a better understanding of the doctrines of grace. It was not too long after I joined that I was asked by my pastor if I wanted to "introduce services". This is a common practice among many of the Hardshell churches in which a lay-member speaks at the front of the church before the actual sermon begins. This allows the people, especially the elders, the opportunity to garner some knowledge about potential candidates to the ministry. My first few attempts at doing this was very subjective, mostly speaking about my own personal experience. Over time though I began to read some verses of scripture and making some comments. Soon, I was being called upon to introduce the services at all the sister churches I visited. The definitive moment for me came one Sunday morning when I spoke on the summary of salvation that I had found taught in the Bible. I specifically remember stating to the people that there were "five things which make up the doctrine of salvation by grace". I remember hearing the pastor of the church that I was visiting utter quietly, "That's right". I was thrown off for a bit, thinking that this elder and I must be considering two different things. You see, at the time I didn't know there was such a thing as "the five points of Calvinism"'. Nor did I know that wise men of the past had already articulated these points into the famous TULIP acronym, and that many Christians outside of the order to which I belonged held to them today!
This is a most important observation as I firmly believe that my experience is shared by not a few. The Hardshells are correctly taught that the Christian world is essentially divided into those who believe in salvation by grace and those who believe in salvation by works, but many are led to believe, as I was, that this is the same thing as saying that there are Primitive Baptists, and then there is everyone else: the Arminians. The separation from the rest of the Christian world that prevails amongst this order means that any new members will have little to no contact with the broader Christian community, and thus, have a slim chance at being made aware that there are other Christians who believe as well in salvation by grace, and more importantly, hear their arguments. Calvinism is often caricatured by elders as being Arminianism itself, thus persuading the people that they alone are preaching sovereign grace.
As a young member within the Primitive Baptists it is important that I relate to the reader some of the things which I soon began to hear taught. This is a crucial point as it is relevant to the current controversy among the order which has seen a growing minority inch closer, more or less, to Calvinistic theology.
Incomplete History
The first and only significant date in church history of which I was told was 1832. I am not alone. No sooner than they join company with the Hardshells are the people made aware of the great epoch of Primitive Baptist history, when the controversy over the modern missionary movement culminated in the famous address given at Black Rock, MD. The controversy was very real and the date an important one for anyone interested in Baptist history, but the problem is that the facts of the split have been misconstrued. Many Hardshells are led to believe that this is when the first-generation broke with the Arminians and that the controversy dealt with theology, both of which are false. Nor were the objections they had over the validity of gospel missions in general, only how they were to be carried out. Theological objections would come later, starting around the mid-1800s and growing to the watershed event of 1891 known as the Burnam controversy.
Hardshells are very vocal about 1832 being their great stand taken in history, yet I feel very few are made aware of this latter date. I knew nothing of it until about ten years later when my theological studies led me to question the claims of church succession. Why was I not told about the significance of 1891 in the development or the order as I was with the Black Rock Address of 1832? Perhaps the relative silence is due to the fact that the leaders do not want their congregations to know that their beloved conditionalist system is of recent origin. Imagine the shock felt by one in whom tradition is of such prime importance were he to learn that his peculiar set of beliefs can be traced back no further than the latter part of the 19th century! What a blow to the current generation’s Landmarkism to read where perseverance was once the preferred expression for eternal security, that absolutism was the original position, and that not a word was spoken in favor of conditional time salvation until it was invented a little over a century ago.
I heard as well sweeping generalizations about church succession. Claims that “we go back through” the Lollards, the Donatists, the Anabaptists, or the Novations occupied no small place in the attempted defense. What I eventually observed, however, was that such bare statements would not be supplemented with actual proof, especially from a theological perspective. In order for this farcical claim to be proven the current generation of Conditionalists must be able to produce the records of the soteriological persuasions of each of these dark age groups, and show how it lines up with the system of conditionalism, especially its espousal of time salvation and its derivations.
By the way, good luck with that.
Absolutism Caricatured
In addition to the presentation that the Christian world was divided up into the Primitive Baptists and the Arminians, I was also promptly told of the other arch-enemy of the Conditionalists, the Absoluters. A statement I recollect made by my former pastor in a sermon helps demonstrate the misrepresentation often heard in the Conditionalist churches. I can only paraphrase his remark as “Some people believe that if I were to knock you upside the head with a brick, that the Lord predestinated it!” Of course at the time I thought that this was an accurate portrayal of absolute predestination. Looking back I now know that what the Conditionalists hear and dismiss as absolutism is in reality a caricature of the true historical position, never hearing the doctrine taught correctly. Their elders often portray the God of absolute predestination as the efficient cause of evil, something which the London Confession denies. They deduce as well that if God has ordained all which comes to pass that this would render them mere robots, without the power of free agency.
The reason why the Conditionalists dismiss the teaching of absolute predestination is because they see it almost synonymous with the pagan doctrine of fatalism. No doubt this is due in great measure to some (I know not how many) of the Absoluters having gone to extremes themselves on the subject. I know this to be true from personal experience. Several years ago I had two cousins who preached at an Absoluter church in Mobile, AL. My father actually attended one of the services. He stated that one said in his sermon that there were two doors to the church building, and that he could only go out of the one which the Lord had determined. While ultimately this is true, it serves as an example of one abusing the scriptural teaching on the subject as if to suggest that he had no volition of will in the matter of how he would exit the church!
The Conditionalist weighs and judges against absolute predestination based on such perversions of it as related above. Both sides would do well to read the writings of some of the great minds of the past such as Jerome Zanchius or John Gill who went to neither extremes when confronted with the tension, or at least apparent tension, of God’s sovereignty and the will of man.
Into the Ministry
It was not too long after I began introducing services that people began calling for my ordination to the ministry. My pastor took lots of heat for not immediately submitting to their request, although I was licensed in 1999. He told me that he had witnessed several young elders who burned out because they were simply not ready. They were either novices or so occupied with secular duties that it was not prudent to ordain them at the time they were. He knew that I was currently enrolled in college at Troy State University pursuing a double major in Mathematics and Computer Science, and didn't want (neither did I) too much put on my plate. He further counseled that a man needs to be well-grounded in the Bible before he is ordained to the ministry. I thought the patience he exhibited in handling my ordination displayed great wisdom on his part. Failure to follow his example is I think a serious problem in some Hardshell ordinations.
I was eventually ordained to the ministry in 2002. In the next chapter I will continue with my experience as a young elder.
In the summer of 1995 the Lord arrested me. I can still remember sitting at the breakfast table telling my father that I wanted to be baptized. He called the pastor of the local church we had been attending and told him the good news. In order to be immersed I was told that I would have to first submit myself for membership. That meant walking the aisle with sweaty palms, all eyes focused on me.
At the time that I came forward for membership at Pine Level Primitive Baptist Church in the small town of Atmore, AL, I knew very little of the Bible. All I knew was what I had been hearing from the pulpit seemed to agree with the scriptural presentation that sinners were saved by the sovereign grace of God, Ephesians 2:8 being my favorite text. Being a young convert at 19 years of age, I was not concerned with matters of deep theology although I was firmly convinced that Arminianism was wrong. What occupied my mind was probably the same as that of many new converts. I simply knew that I was a different person than I was before, having been made a believer in God and His Son. I used to go to work with a smile on my face, a bump in my step, a summery feeling in my breast, thinking that Satan couldn't touch me with a 10-foot pole.
I continued attending church, growing slowly in a better understanding of the doctrines of grace. It was not too long after I joined that I was asked by my pastor if I wanted to "introduce services". This is a common practice among many of the Hardshell churches in which a lay-member speaks at the front of the church before the actual sermon begins. This allows the people, especially the elders, the opportunity to garner some knowledge about potential candidates to the ministry. My first few attempts at doing this was very subjective, mostly speaking about my own personal experience. Over time though I began to read some verses of scripture and making some comments. Soon, I was being called upon to introduce the services at all the sister churches I visited. The definitive moment for me came one Sunday morning when I spoke on the summary of salvation that I had found taught in the Bible. I specifically remember stating to the people that there were "five things which make up the doctrine of salvation by grace". I remember hearing the pastor of the church that I was visiting utter quietly, "That's right". I was thrown off for a bit, thinking that this elder and I must be considering two different things. You see, at the time I didn't know there was such a thing as "the five points of Calvinism"'. Nor did I know that wise men of the past had already articulated these points into the famous TULIP acronym, and that many Christians outside of the order to which I belonged held to them today!
This is a most important observation as I firmly believe that my experience is shared by not a few. The Hardshells are correctly taught that the Christian world is essentially divided into those who believe in salvation by grace and those who believe in salvation by works, but many are led to believe, as I was, that this is the same thing as saying that there are Primitive Baptists, and then there is everyone else: the Arminians. The separation from the rest of the Christian world that prevails amongst this order means that any new members will have little to no contact with the broader Christian community, and thus, have a slim chance at being made aware that there are other Christians who believe as well in salvation by grace, and more importantly, hear their arguments. Calvinism is often caricatured by elders as being Arminianism itself, thus persuading the people that they alone are preaching sovereign grace.
As a young member within the Primitive Baptists it is important that I relate to the reader some of the things which I soon began to hear taught. This is a crucial point as it is relevant to the current controversy among the order which has seen a growing minority inch closer, more or less, to Calvinistic theology.
Incomplete History
The first and only significant date in church history of which I was told was 1832. I am not alone. No sooner than they join company with the Hardshells are the people made aware of the great epoch of Primitive Baptist history, when the controversy over the modern missionary movement culminated in the famous address given at Black Rock, MD. The controversy was very real and the date an important one for anyone interested in Baptist history, but the problem is that the facts of the split have been misconstrued. Many Hardshells are led to believe that this is when the first-generation broke with the Arminians and that the controversy dealt with theology, both of which are false. Nor were the objections they had over the validity of gospel missions in general, only how they were to be carried out. Theological objections would come later, starting around the mid-1800s and growing to the watershed event of 1891 known as the Burnam controversy.
Hardshells are very vocal about 1832 being their great stand taken in history, yet I feel very few are made aware of this latter date. I knew nothing of it until about ten years later when my theological studies led me to question the claims of church succession. Why was I not told about the significance of 1891 in the development or the order as I was with the Black Rock Address of 1832? Perhaps the relative silence is due to the fact that the leaders do not want their congregations to know that their beloved conditionalist system is of recent origin. Imagine the shock felt by one in whom tradition is of such prime importance were he to learn that his peculiar set of beliefs can be traced back no further than the latter part of the 19th century! What a blow to the current generation’s Landmarkism to read where perseverance was once the preferred expression for eternal security, that absolutism was the original position, and that not a word was spoken in favor of conditional time salvation until it was invented a little over a century ago.
I heard as well sweeping generalizations about church succession. Claims that “we go back through” the Lollards, the Donatists, the Anabaptists, or the Novations occupied no small place in the attempted defense. What I eventually observed, however, was that such bare statements would not be supplemented with actual proof, especially from a theological perspective. In order for this farcical claim to be proven the current generation of Conditionalists must be able to produce the records of the soteriological persuasions of each of these dark age groups, and show how it lines up with the system of conditionalism, especially its espousal of time salvation and its derivations.
By the way, good luck with that.
Absolutism Caricatured
In addition to the presentation that the Christian world was divided up into the Primitive Baptists and the Arminians, I was also promptly told of the other arch-enemy of the Conditionalists, the Absoluters. A statement I recollect made by my former pastor in a sermon helps demonstrate the misrepresentation often heard in the Conditionalist churches. I can only paraphrase his remark as “Some people believe that if I were to knock you upside the head with a brick, that the Lord predestinated it!” Of course at the time I thought that this was an accurate portrayal of absolute predestination. Looking back I now know that what the Conditionalists hear and dismiss as absolutism is in reality a caricature of the true historical position, never hearing the doctrine taught correctly. Their elders often portray the God of absolute predestination as the efficient cause of evil, something which the London Confession denies. They deduce as well that if God has ordained all which comes to pass that this would render them mere robots, without the power of free agency.
The reason why the Conditionalists dismiss the teaching of absolute predestination is because they see it almost synonymous with the pagan doctrine of fatalism. No doubt this is due in great measure to some (I know not how many) of the Absoluters having gone to extremes themselves on the subject. I know this to be true from personal experience. Several years ago I had two cousins who preached at an Absoluter church in Mobile, AL. My father actually attended one of the services. He stated that one said in his sermon that there were two doors to the church building, and that he could only go out of the one which the Lord had determined. While ultimately this is true, it serves as an example of one abusing the scriptural teaching on the subject as if to suggest that he had no volition of will in the matter of how he would exit the church!
The Conditionalist weighs and judges against absolute predestination based on such perversions of it as related above. Both sides would do well to read the writings of some of the great minds of the past such as Jerome Zanchius or John Gill who went to neither extremes when confronted with the tension, or at least apparent tension, of God’s sovereignty and the will of man.
Into the Ministry
It was not too long after I began introducing services that people began calling for my ordination to the ministry. My pastor took lots of heat for not immediately submitting to their request, although I was licensed in 1999. He told me that he had witnessed several young elders who burned out because they were simply not ready. They were either novices or so occupied with secular duties that it was not prudent to ordain them at the time they were. He knew that I was currently enrolled in college at Troy State University pursuing a double major in Mathematics and Computer Science, and didn't want (neither did I) too much put on my plate. He further counseled that a man needs to be well-grounded in the Bible before he is ordained to the ministry. I thought the patience he exhibited in handling my ordination displayed great wisdom on his part. Failure to follow his example is I think a serious problem in some Hardshell ordinations.
I was eventually ordained to the ministry in 2002. In the next chapter I will continue with my experience as a young elder.
Saturday, May 25, 2013
A Proposal
My high school English teacher used to teach that it was not considered good literary practice to make reference to self. My guess was that she felt that writers were to remain as objective as possible, which isn’t easily done when one puts himself into the picture. And so from that day forward we were forbidden to use the pronoun ‘I’ in anything we wrote. A good while later, though, she read an article to us wherein the author was criticizing this understood rule in the literary world. He argued that by forbidding writers to make reference to self they were being robbed of the single greatest source of information they have available to them. It made a lot of sense to me at the time, for using ‘I’ was the best way that I, as a young teenager, could express a thought or an opinion.
What the accepted rule on this is today I do not know. If it is considered best to refrain from mentioning self when writing, I shall promptly ignore it. Having contributed on this blog for quite some now, and having thought about its potential benefits, the time has come for me to write specifically on my own experiences in the Primitive Baptist church. Motivated by others who have likewise been ostracized when they came to see the truth on important bible doctrines, I use this as an opportunity to present my own spiritual journey. In this series of postings which I propose to do I shall not only speak of doctrinal matters, but also some of the things that I noticed as a young member and minister within the church. As I consider this, I can’t help but be reminded of the first time I read Brother Stephen’s own chapter on this topic. My experience was so similar that I felt I could complete his sentences most of the time.
My desire in contributing to this site has never been about grinding an ax. I’ve wanted to say this for an awful long time. It’s probably the common lot of those engaged in apologetic ministries that they are charged with having some personal vendetta, so I guess I should expect this. That being said, I understand perfectly well that there will always be some measure of animosity between myself and those whom I left. We all struggle with our carnality, so I would be lying if I said that I didn’t have any emotional scars from how I and my family were treated. When I look within though, and see the hope that I have in Christ, I am able to lay aside any ill will. If I could have my wish, it would be for the Primitive Baptist churches to flourish everywhere. My reputation among the people matters very little. I am more than willing to be considered an afterthought as long as they will simply come to see their error and repent. Many of them are hoping and praying for growth, yet fail to recognize that their own doctrinal position is working against them, and is largely responsible for the demise and, saddest of all, closing of church doors.
So expect some postings from me in the near future in which I share my experience in the Primitive Baptist Church, including observations, lessons learned, and especially what I saw in scripture. I am not sure of the direction I shall take. I shall simply go where I’m led.
Stay tuned.
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Hardshell Pelagianism VI
Chapter 143
Thus far in this series of chapters I have shown how Hardshells have imbibed the Pelagian idea that biblical commands imply ability to obey the commands. I have shown that such an idea has led many of them to affirm that Gospel commands are limited to those who are already spiritually alive or regenerated. I have shown how they have not spoken as a unified voice on this issue however. Elder Hassell affirmed that the command to "repent" and to "seek" God, so as to "find him," as Paul preached in Acts chapter seventeen to the Athenian pagans, was to "all men," just as the text affirms. Very few Hardshells today would agree with Hassell, however, because they believe the Pelagian idea that a Gospel command implies ability to obey. Most Hardshells limit Gospel commands to those already regenerated because, as Elder Beebe asserted, such commands imply ability. In those chapters under the series "Addresses to the Lost," it was clearly shown that Gospel commands are directed towards all men. I have shown how many Hardshells, especially since the start of the twentieth century, have been in error on the nature of man's inability, believing that man's inability is not strictly moral, but physical, affirming that man could not obey the Lord even if the will was directed to do so; And, it is this error that has led many of them to believe that regeneration gives a physical ability and involves a change in the substance or essence of the soul.
John Gill wrote:
"It is raised a spiritual body: not as to substance, but as to its quality; it will not be changed into a spirit; our Lord's risen body, to which ours will be conformed, was not a spirit, but, as before, consisted of flesh and bones: but the body will then be subject to the spirit and soul of man; it will be employed in spiritual service, for which it will be abundantly fitted and assisted by the Spirit of God; and it will be delighted with spiritual objects; it will be like the angels, those excellent spirits; it will live as spirits do, without natural helps and means, as meat, drink, clothes, sleep, and, as they, will never die..." (Commentary upon I Corinthians chapter 15)
This citation is important because Elder Sarrels argued that the soul undergoes a physical change in substance in the same manner in which the body will undergo a physical change in the resurrection. But, here, Gill denies that a physical change in substance occurs to the body in the resurrection.
Gill also wrote:
"and afterwards that which is spiritual; yea, even Christ's animal, or natural body, was before his spiritual one; his body taken from the virgin, and formed in her womb, and in which he lived here on earth, was an animal body, as before observed; and upon his resurrection, it commenced a spiritual one; being the same in substance as the former, only different in qualities; and just so it is, and will be, with the bodies of the saints'; which is the apostle's design and view, in observing this order; the natural body is first, and then the spiritual; it is first a natural body, as generated and nourished, as weak and dying, and it is afterwards a spiritual one, when raised from the dead." (Ibid)
Again, just as Gill believed about the change that occurs to the soul in regeneration, so he also believes about the change to the body in the resurrection. Neither the soul nor the body undergoes any change in substance. Thus, the argument of Sarrels that there is a change in the substance of soul and body is not reflective of what the Old Baptists taught on the subject.
Gill also wrote:
"This image also lies in the freedom of the will, and the power of it. As God is a free agent, so is man; and as the freedom of the divine will does not lie in an indifference and indetermination to good and evil, but is only to that which is good; so was the will of man in his state of integrity: as likewise the will of the good angels and glorified saints. And man had a power to obey the will of God, and do his commands; and as he had not only a positive law given him to abstain from the forbidden fruit, as a trial of his obedience; so he had the moral law written on his heart, as the rule of his obedience, and had power and ability to keep it; for as it was required of him to love the Lord his God with all his heart, and soul, and strength; so he could, if he would, have performed the same; and such strength and ability were due unto him, from the laws of creation; for if God required of him obedience to his holy law, it was but fit and right that he should give him a conformity of nature and will to it, and power to obey it; though, he was not obliged to give him grace and strength to persevere, nor to render him impeccable and immutable; wherefore, leaving him to the mutability of his will, he sinned, and fell from his former estate, which on that account is called "vanity" (Ps. 39:5)." (A BODY OF DOCTRINAL DIVINITY Book 3—Chapter 3 OF THE CREATION OF MAN, 4b2c)
This is important because Sarrels and other Hardshells have erroneously argued that God's making man a "natural" person made him incapable to doing what is "spiritual." Yet, as has been previously shown, the law of God is "spiritual" (Rom. 7: 14) and therefore obedience to it would be spiritual. It seems that the view of Sarrels and other Hardshells who teach that man has no natural ability to do spiritual acts, either now or originally, are teaching that God commands men to do what they have never had the ability to do, the very proposition that some of them find repugnant.
In an 1842 Circular Letter of the South Carolina Primitive Baptist Association (see here), the writers addressed these issues and wrote the following.
"WHAT ARE WE TO UNDERSTAND by being born again?"
"It surely cannot mean, a mere external reformation from gross immortality; nor a change from one system of religion to another; nor even from heathen idolatry to the Christian faith; nor in submission to the ordinance of Baptism; nor yet in firm persuasion that we are the children of God; zealously doing the work of our heavenly Father. The memorable instance of Simon Magus and Saul of Tarsus illustrates these remarks; the former believed historically, but the latter by the power of the word and spirit of God, working on the dark powers of the soul and diffusing life divine. Then the expression born again, and all other [parallel] phrases found in the word of God, are too strong and distinct to admit of any consistent meaning, less than a radical change in the disposition of the soul."
The word "mere" is important to notice in the above words. It shows that the first Hardshells were not denying that being "born again" involved "eternal reformation from gross immorality," or of being converted to the Christian faith, but simply affirmed that being "born again" included more than this. Yet, it is to be remembered how today's Hardshells exclude conversion from what it means to be "born again." These first Hardshells however included conversion. They did not believe that Simon Magus was truly born again nor that Paul was born again prior to his conversion experience on the Damascus road. In fact, these first Hardshells affirmed that Paul's being "born again" included his being made a believer in Jesus. They aslso affirmed that being "born again" was by "the word and spirit of God," just as the old London Confession affirmed but which is denied by today's Hardshells. They also affirm that the new birth was "a radical change in the disposition," not in the substance, "of the soul."
The circular continues:
"We say a change or renewal in the disposition of the soul, because no new facilities are imparted to man in the new birth, none were lost by the fall and none are given in regeneration; the carnal mind or disposition of sinful man is enmity against God, and in the new birth a spiritual mind or disposition is given to man under the power and influence of the spirit of God, in which the powers and faculties of the soul receive a new and spiritual direction; the moral image of God was defaced in man by his apostasy. This image is restored in the new birth, by the word and spirit of God."
Clearly these first Hardshells denied that the substance of the soul was changed in the new birth, affirming that "no new faculties are imparted to man in the new birth," affirming that "none were lost by the fall and none are given in regeneration." This is contrary to the Hardshells cited in previous chapters, such as Elder Sarrels. Sarrels denied that the new birth was simply a giving of a new and spiritual direction to the soul. Also, again, these first Hardshells affirmed that the new birth was "by the word and spirit of God."
The circular continues:
"This change or renewal is radical. It reaches to the thoughts and dispositions; the aims and ends of the new born soul are to glorify God, in the gift of his grace and spirit. All this is effected by the same mighty power and energy of God, which first gave life and form to man; and which alone can rectify and restore that part of man, which was lost and disordered. Hence those who were the children of wrath, have now become the children of God by the blood of the covenant, and adopted heirs of Christ into the grace of life, and are said to be born again, or translated from darkness to light, and from the power of sin and Satan into the kingdom of Christ."
Again, the authors of the circular deny that the new birth or regeneration changes the substance of the soul, but rather define it in terms of what is called conversion. They had no qualms calling the new birth a rectification and restoration, a truth denied by Sarrels and the other modern Hardshells previously cited.
The circular continued:
"For it is the office of the spirit to illuminate the dark faculties of the soul, and to give it that faith which works by love and purifies the heart. And so wonderfully develops itself in the new born soul, that it shows it all the beauty and graces of Jesus, and enables the creature to receive the Saviour as their prophet, priest, and king. This is to be born again. There the regenerated soul is said to be God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained, that we should walk in them. As such old things are done away, behold all things become new."
Notice again how the first Hardshells defined what it meant to be "born again." It involved being illuminated in the Christian faith, of having faith in Christ. It involves receiving Christ. Rather than giving new faculties to the soul, it rather illuminates the existing dark faculties of the soul.
The circular continued:
"But again, how or what is the effect on the sinner’s heart? When wrought to a knowledge of sin, the dead soul is quickened and made alive to feel and see its lost and ruined state, and to feel the condemning power of God’s holy law and the justice of God in damning or banishing it from his presence forever. And thus the soul or sinner is brought to mourn on account of his sin, and to dread the terrors of God’s wrath, while God by his spirit sends his word into the hearts as a sharp two-edged sword, piercing or dividing asunder of soul and spirit; that spirit which defaced the glorious image of God, and put enmity between God and the sinner. And now he is brought to a knowledge of his sin by the power of the law, the sinner is now converted, convinced, and convicted, and sees himself a just monument of God’s wrath, while the thunders of Mount Sinai rolls against the guilty soul, and it is the schoolmaster, the Law, that takes the sinner and brings him to Christ."
Though I would disagree with the idea that mere conviction of sin is a result of being born again (see previous chapters on "Hardshells and Conviction"), nevertheless they did not limit their definition of what it means to be "born again" to mere conviction of sin but affirmed that it included being "converted" and being brought to Christ.
The circular continued:
"And here, brethren, is the last blow the ax or the Law gives the sinner, it fells him and lays him at the foot of the cross, where that glorious fountain runs down. There is the time and place that Jesus comes with pardon, and applies his atoning blood. And now the sinner is enabled to look up to Jesus by faith, and see the streaming blood; this is the time of agonizing with soul, there the time of godly sorrow, that worketh repentance, unto salvation, not to be repented of. And then is the time that Jesus applies the water by the word and sanctifying graces of his spirit; and there it is that the soul is regenerated and born again."
When does Jesus apply his atoning blood, according to this first Primitive Baptist periodical? When Jesus comes to the convicted soul "with pardon." It is a description of Gospel conversion when Jesus applies his atoning blood by "the water by the word." It is when the soul is thus converted to Jesus that the soul "is regenerated and born again."
The circular continued:
"Jesus is formed in the soul, the hope of glory. Then it is mercy and truth meet together in the soul; then it is that righteousness and peace kiss each other in the soul; and then the sinner is justified and reconciled to God through the faith of Christ, and the soul filled with that joy that is unspeakable and full of glory: then it is that a new song is put into the mouth, even praise to God."
When is the soul justified and reconciled to God? When is Jesus "formed in the soul" as the "hope of glory"? Is it not when the sinner comes to faith in Christ?
Today's Hardshells who make the new birth to be a change in the soul substance without a conversion to Christ are not even in agreement with their own founding fathers. When they make man's inability to be natural and physical, they are in disagreement with the great Calvinist authors and with their own leading founding fathers.
Thus far in this series of chapters I have shown how Hardshells have imbibed the Pelagian idea that biblical commands imply ability to obey the commands. I have shown that such an idea has led many of them to affirm that Gospel commands are limited to those who are already spiritually alive or regenerated. I have shown how they have not spoken as a unified voice on this issue however. Elder Hassell affirmed that the command to "repent" and to "seek" God, so as to "find him," as Paul preached in Acts chapter seventeen to the Athenian pagans, was to "all men," just as the text affirms. Very few Hardshells today would agree with Hassell, however, because they believe the Pelagian idea that a Gospel command implies ability to obey. Most Hardshells limit Gospel commands to those already regenerated because, as Elder Beebe asserted, such commands imply ability. In those chapters under the series "Addresses to the Lost," it was clearly shown that Gospel commands are directed towards all men. I have shown how many Hardshells, especially since the start of the twentieth century, have been in error on the nature of man's inability, believing that man's inability is not strictly moral, but physical, affirming that man could not obey the Lord even if the will was directed to do so; And, it is this error that has led many of them to believe that regeneration gives a physical ability and involves a change in the substance or essence of the soul.
John Gill wrote:
"It is raised a spiritual body: not as to substance, but as to its quality; it will not be changed into a spirit; our Lord's risen body, to which ours will be conformed, was not a spirit, but, as before, consisted of flesh and bones: but the body will then be subject to the spirit and soul of man; it will be employed in spiritual service, for which it will be abundantly fitted and assisted by the Spirit of God; and it will be delighted with spiritual objects; it will be like the angels, those excellent spirits; it will live as spirits do, without natural helps and means, as meat, drink, clothes, sleep, and, as they, will never die..." (Commentary upon I Corinthians chapter 15)
This citation is important because Elder Sarrels argued that the soul undergoes a physical change in substance in the same manner in which the body will undergo a physical change in the resurrection. But, here, Gill denies that a physical change in substance occurs to the body in the resurrection.
Gill also wrote:
"and afterwards that which is spiritual; yea, even Christ's animal, or natural body, was before his spiritual one; his body taken from the virgin, and formed in her womb, and in which he lived here on earth, was an animal body, as before observed; and upon his resurrection, it commenced a spiritual one; being the same in substance as the former, only different in qualities; and just so it is, and will be, with the bodies of the saints'; which is the apostle's design and view, in observing this order; the natural body is first, and then the spiritual; it is first a natural body, as generated and nourished, as weak and dying, and it is afterwards a spiritual one, when raised from the dead." (Ibid)
Again, just as Gill believed about the change that occurs to the soul in regeneration, so he also believes about the change to the body in the resurrection. Neither the soul nor the body undergoes any change in substance. Thus, the argument of Sarrels that there is a change in the substance of soul and body is not reflective of what the Old Baptists taught on the subject.
Gill also wrote:
"This image also lies in the freedom of the will, and the power of it. As God is a free agent, so is man; and as the freedom of the divine will does not lie in an indifference and indetermination to good and evil, but is only to that which is good; so was the will of man in his state of integrity: as likewise the will of the good angels and glorified saints. And man had a power to obey the will of God, and do his commands; and as he had not only a positive law given him to abstain from the forbidden fruit, as a trial of his obedience; so he had the moral law written on his heart, as the rule of his obedience, and had power and ability to keep it; for as it was required of him to love the Lord his God with all his heart, and soul, and strength; so he could, if he would, have performed the same; and such strength and ability were due unto him, from the laws of creation; for if God required of him obedience to his holy law, it was but fit and right that he should give him a conformity of nature and will to it, and power to obey it; though, he was not obliged to give him grace and strength to persevere, nor to render him impeccable and immutable; wherefore, leaving him to the mutability of his will, he sinned, and fell from his former estate, which on that account is called "vanity" (Ps. 39:5)." (A BODY OF DOCTRINAL DIVINITY Book 3—Chapter 3 OF THE CREATION OF MAN, 4b2c)
This is important because Sarrels and other Hardshells have erroneously argued that God's making man a "natural" person made him incapable to doing what is "spiritual." Yet, as has been previously shown, the law of God is "spiritual" (Rom. 7: 14) and therefore obedience to it would be spiritual. It seems that the view of Sarrels and other Hardshells who teach that man has no natural ability to do spiritual acts, either now or originally, are teaching that God commands men to do what they have never had the ability to do, the very proposition that some of them find repugnant.
In an 1842 Circular Letter of the South Carolina Primitive Baptist Association (see here), the writers addressed these issues and wrote the following.
"WHAT ARE WE TO UNDERSTAND by being born again?"
"It surely cannot mean, a mere external reformation from gross immortality; nor a change from one system of religion to another; nor even from heathen idolatry to the Christian faith; nor in submission to the ordinance of Baptism; nor yet in firm persuasion that we are the children of God; zealously doing the work of our heavenly Father. The memorable instance of Simon Magus and Saul of Tarsus illustrates these remarks; the former believed historically, but the latter by the power of the word and spirit of God, working on the dark powers of the soul and diffusing life divine. Then the expression born again, and all other [parallel] phrases found in the word of God, are too strong and distinct to admit of any consistent meaning, less than a radical change in the disposition of the soul."
The word "mere" is important to notice in the above words. It shows that the first Hardshells were not denying that being "born again" involved "eternal reformation from gross immorality," or of being converted to the Christian faith, but simply affirmed that being "born again" included more than this. Yet, it is to be remembered how today's Hardshells exclude conversion from what it means to be "born again." These first Hardshells however included conversion. They did not believe that Simon Magus was truly born again nor that Paul was born again prior to his conversion experience on the Damascus road. In fact, these first Hardshells affirmed that Paul's being "born again" included his being made a believer in Jesus. They aslso affirmed that being "born again" was by "the word and spirit of God," just as the old London Confession affirmed but which is denied by today's Hardshells. They also affirm that the new birth was "a radical change in the disposition," not in the substance, "of the soul."
The circular continues:
"We say a change or renewal in the disposition of the soul, because no new facilities are imparted to man in the new birth, none were lost by the fall and none are given in regeneration; the carnal mind or disposition of sinful man is enmity against God, and in the new birth a spiritual mind or disposition is given to man under the power and influence of the spirit of God, in which the powers and faculties of the soul receive a new and spiritual direction; the moral image of God was defaced in man by his apostasy. This image is restored in the new birth, by the word and spirit of God."
Clearly these first Hardshells denied that the substance of the soul was changed in the new birth, affirming that "no new faculties are imparted to man in the new birth," affirming that "none were lost by the fall and none are given in regeneration." This is contrary to the Hardshells cited in previous chapters, such as Elder Sarrels. Sarrels denied that the new birth was simply a giving of a new and spiritual direction to the soul. Also, again, these first Hardshells affirmed that the new birth was "by the word and spirit of God."
The circular continues:
"This change or renewal is radical. It reaches to the thoughts and dispositions; the aims and ends of the new born soul are to glorify God, in the gift of his grace and spirit. All this is effected by the same mighty power and energy of God, which first gave life and form to man; and which alone can rectify and restore that part of man, which was lost and disordered. Hence those who were the children of wrath, have now become the children of God by the blood of the covenant, and adopted heirs of Christ into the grace of life, and are said to be born again, or translated from darkness to light, and from the power of sin and Satan into the kingdom of Christ."
Again, the authors of the circular deny that the new birth or regeneration changes the substance of the soul, but rather define it in terms of what is called conversion. They had no qualms calling the new birth a rectification and restoration, a truth denied by Sarrels and the other modern Hardshells previously cited.
The circular continued:
"For it is the office of the spirit to illuminate the dark faculties of the soul, and to give it that faith which works by love and purifies the heart. And so wonderfully develops itself in the new born soul, that it shows it all the beauty and graces of Jesus, and enables the creature to receive the Saviour as their prophet, priest, and king. This is to be born again. There the regenerated soul is said to be God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained, that we should walk in them. As such old things are done away, behold all things become new."
Notice again how the first Hardshells defined what it meant to be "born again." It involved being illuminated in the Christian faith, of having faith in Christ. It involves receiving Christ. Rather than giving new faculties to the soul, it rather illuminates the existing dark faculties of the soul.
The circular continued:
"But again, how or what is the effect on the sinner’s heart? When wrought to a knowledge of sin, the dead soul is quickened and made alive to feel and see its lost and ruined state, and to feel the condemning power of God’s holy law and the justice of God in damning or banishing it from his presence forever. And thus the soul or sinner is brought to mourn on account of his sin, and to dread the terrors of God’s wrath, while God by his spirit sends his word into the hearts as a sharp two-edged sword, piercing or dividing asunder of soul and spirit; that spirit which defaced the glorious image of God, and put enmity between God and the sinner. And now he is brought to a knowledge of his sin by the power of the law, the sinner is now converted, convinced, and convicted, and sees himself a just monument of God’s wrath, while the thunders of Mount Sinai rolls against the guilty soul, and it is the schoolmaster, the Law, that takes the sinner and brings him to Christ."
Though I would disagree with the idea that mere conviction of sin is a result of being born again (see previous chapters on "Hardshells and Conviction"), nevertheless they did not limit their definition of what it means to be "born again" to mere conviction of sin but affirmed that it included being "converted" and being brought to Christ.
The circular continued:
"And here, brethren, is the last blow the ax or the Law gives the sinner, it fells him and lays him at the foot of the cross, where that glorious fountain runs down. There is the time and place that Jesus comes with pardon, and applies his atoning blood. And now the sinner is enabled to look up to Jesus by faith, and see the streaming blood; this is the time of agonizing with soul, there the time of godly sorrow, that worketh repentance, unto salvation, not to be repented of. And then is the time that Jesus applies the water by the word and sanctifying graces of his spirit; and there it is that the soul is regenerated and born again."
When does Jesus apply his atoning blood, according to this first Primitive Baptist periodical? When Jesus comes to the convicted soul "with pardon." It is a description of Gospel conversion when Jesus applies his atoning blood by "the water by the word." It is when the soul is thus converted to Jesus that the soul "is regenerated and born again."
The circular continued:
"Jesus is formed in the soul, the hope of glory. Then it is mercy and truth meet together in the soul; then it is that righteousness and peace kiss each other in the soul; and then the sinner is justified and reconciled to God through the faith of Christ, and the soul filled with that joy that is unspeakable and full of glory: then it is that a new song is put into the mouth, even praise to God."
When is the soul justified and reconciled to God? When is Jesus "formed in the soul" as the "hope of glory"? Is it not when the sinner comes to faith in Christ?
Today's Hardshells who make the new birth to be a change in the soul substance without a conversion to Christ are not even in agreement with their own founding fathers. When they make man's inability to be natural and physical, they are in disagreement with the great Calvinist authors and with their own leading founding fathers.
Sunday, May 19, 2013
Hardshell Sabellianism IV
Elder Samuel Trott, early Hardshell leader, in his continued defense of his Sabellian views, and in answer to the charges of Elder John Clark's charge of Arianism, wrote the following in a Signs of the Times article titled "CALM REPLY TO A COMMUNICATION OF ELD. JOHN CLARK WRITTEN ORIGINALLY FOR THE "SIGNS" BUT PUBLISHED IN THE "PRIMITIVE BAPTIST," APRIL 30, 1853, WITH THAT COMMUNICATION INSERTED." (1854) (see here)
"Again, on page 114, Elder C., though he names no one in this letter, yet he evidently refers to those named in the accompanying communication, says:
"I have preached and written against their doctrine concerning the Son of God, and charged that it is Arianism – and I here repeat it."
In the foregoing paragraph, he speaks of being in readiness to prove upon us the sentiments with which he charges us: yes, just as he proved me an Arian, in the specimen I gave of his manner of proving it, on a preceding page...But we will come to the charge which Elder Clark boasts of having made against us. I entreat Elder C., and any others who unite with him in these charges, to follow me in the inquiry as to the truth of this charge, with candor. As to what Arius actually believed, I know not; but in speaking of Arianism, I speak of it as described by those who wrote of it. Elder C., and others with him, generally, will, I presume, admit that Athanasians, and Tri-personalists, generally, hold that the Son no otherwise exists as God, than as he is the Son of God, or than as he was begotten of the Father; that in his Godhead, therefore, as well as a person in the Godhead he was begotten of the Father; whilst they hold that he is of the same substance coequal and coeternal with the Father. They will, also, I think, admit that Arius occupied exactly the same starting ground with the other party, viz: that the Son no otherwise existed than as he was the Son of God, or begotten of the Father. But here they split in their conclusions from this common position. Arius drew the conclusion, that as the Son only existed in his Sonship, he, from the nature of that relation to the Father, and from the fact that his existence was a begotten existence, must necessarily be posterior in his individual existence to the Father who begat him, and hence was not coequal and coeternal with the Father. I must confess, if I had not the Scriptures for my guide, but had to take the same leading position which Athansius and Arius both occupied in the forming an opinion of the being of the Son of God, that I must take Arius' side of the question, as being far more consistent than the other. But I, and those with me, do not occupy the same original position with them, at all: hence, I have offered to prove, if any of those accusers would meet me in arguments on the point, that they are far more assimilated to Arianism than we are: but they have never consented to meet me on that point. The position which we occupy, and the ground on which we stand, is, that what God has revealed of himself in the Scriptures, we are safe in receiving as truth; what He has not revealed, it is presumption in mortals, and would be in angels, to attempt to inquire into; that God has revealed himself as three, as the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and that these three are one; that they are so three, that there are points of distinction by which they are severally declared in the Scripture; and so one, that to us there is but one God. Hence, when either of the three is spoken of as God, we understand it to be that one God in all his fullness of attributes and glory."
Is the view of Clark and other Trinitarians who affirm the eternal sonship of Christ more akin to the views of the heretic Arius or is the view of Trott more akin to them? Trott thinks that those who affirm that Christ always existed as the Son of God in the Godhead is similar to Arianism because both affirm that Christ no otherwise existed except as the Son of God. But, the likeness is only slight, for Arius did not believe that the sonship of Christ was eternal, just as the Fatherhood of God. On the other hand, Arius and the view of Trott are much more alike in that they both affirm that the sonship of Christ is not eternal, but denotes a creation. The difference is that Arius did not believe Christ existed in any sense prior to his becoming the Son of God while Trott believes that Christ existed as God before he became the Son of God. The view of Trott is similar to those who say Christ was the eternal Word, or God, before his incarnational sonship via the virgin. But, Trott can say that Christ was God before he became the Son of God because he believes that God is one person, the sonship only being a mode in which the one person God reveals himself.
Trott continued:
"Hence our conclusion is, that if God exists absolutely independent of any one, or of any act by which he is brought into existence, then each of the three must alike so exist as God: and as we find it not declared in the Scriptures that God exists as three distinct persons, or that one of these persons was begotten of the other, and that the third is breathed into existence, we reject the whole, as fabulous. Again: we find the Son of God declared in the Scriptures, and all those characteristics, or attributes of Sonship, so ascribed to him, that we feel bound to believe that he is actually the Son of God, the only begotten of the Father. We further find this Son of God so identified with the Word, that we believe that the Son is the Word, in all his fullness of the Godhead. Hence, as we believe the Godhead cannot be changed from its absolutely independent self-existence, so as truly to sustain the relation and characteristics of Sonship, we believe the Word has that in himself, and has had from the beginning, which enables him fully to sustain this relation of Sonship, and of being begotten of the Father, without diminishing, or changing the attributes of his essential Godhead, or ceasing to be the one God. In reference to what his characteristics of Sonship consist in, I shall have to speak more fully in another place. But I have more summed up, in as definite and clear words I can, my belief of God, as existing in Trinity, for I do believe in a Trinity, but not in tripersonality; and in the Son of God, as being in his person, truly, both God and the Son of God."
Trott confesses that he denies the historic doctrine of the Trinity, that God is three persons, and favors the Sabellian economic or modalistic Trinity. In doing so, he goes against the Old Baptist confessions and can hardly claim to be an Old Baptist.
Trott continued:
"I will now pass to notice the idea of creatureship as applied to Christ in the Scriptures, in distinction from his being made flesh. It will, I presume, be admitted that in God's Son being made of a woman, the idea of creatureship is ascribed to him in person, and that without derogating from his Godhead or making him a "created God;" strange, then, that such a general alarm should be produced at the idea of creatureship being applied to him, as he is the life of his people. But surely, if men inspired of God have, without reserve, in giving their testimony of Jesus, attached this idea to him, I think I need not be afraid to do it, though opposed by friends and foes. But I have never represented that as the Son he is inferior to the Father because God created him, as Elder C. has stated. I have based his subordination to the Father upon his relation as Son, as well as upon the testimony of Scripture, showing that he sustained such inferior relation. Elder C. admits that we have such expressions as these: "The beginning of the creation of God," – "The first born of every creature," to sustain our views; but he appears not to admit them to be Scripture. They, however, will be found Rev. 3:14, and Col. 1:15. How is Christ The beginning of the creation of God, according to the proper import of the words, if he was not in some sense the first of God's creating? And how the first born of every creature, if not in some sense a creature?"
It is easy to see how Elder Clark would charge Elder Trott with Arianism based upon Trott's remarks upon Rev. 3: 14 and Col. 1: 15. They are the same views that Arius and his followers took upon the passages and the same views modern Arians also take upon them, such as "Jehovah's Witnesses." Of course, these passages do not teach that the Son of God was begotten in time or created. These passages speak of Christ being, besides the eikon (image) of God the Father, but as being the "prōtotokos" (firstborn) of every creature and the "archē" (beginning) of God's creation. These terms do not denote origin but rank. They do not denote being first made but first in rank. Christ, the Son of God is "prōtotokos" because he is the rightful heir of all things. Not only were all things created by him but "for him." He is "the heir of all things." (Heb. 1: 2) Further, if Christ being "the beginning" ("archē") means that he had a beginning in time, then his being "the ending" or "the last" (Rev. 1: 8, 11; 21: 6; 22: 13) means that Christ will have an end, will one day be no more. Also, as Elder Clark argued, Paul explains what he means by saying that Christ is the "prōtotokos" by saying "for by him were all things created." If the view of Arius or Trott were true, Paul should have said "for God created him first."
Trott continued:
"How Christ is the begotten Son of God, may, I conceive, be illustrated by his second begetting as the Son of God; for there are evidently two begettings spoken of in the Scripture to him. John says, speaking of the Word being made flesh, "We beheld (not shall behold,) his glory, the glory as of the only begotten Son of the Father, &c." And at the baptism of Jesus, and in his transfiguration on the mount, the voice from heaven was, "This is (not shall be,) my beloved Son, &c." Thus he was declared to be already the begotten Son of God. But the begetting of which I speak as a second begetting, was an after event to these. It is named in Psalms 2:7, "Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee." This was spoken prophetically, and therefore though spoken in the present tense, had a future reference. So an inspired Apostle applied it (Acts 13:33,) when he said, "God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again, as it is also written in the second Psalm, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee." The apostle makes this begetting to be the same with his being "The first begotten of the dead." Rev. 1:5."
Christ did not have multiple "begettings." He has always been the Son of God, eternally the only begotten of the Father. The begetting from the womb of the virgin and his being begotten from the dead did not make him the Son of God but only revealed him to be such.
Trott continued:
"Thus it appears to me that the terms only begotten Son of God are according to their proper import, strictly descriptive of that relation which Christ as Mediator sustains to God. But as this exaltation of Christ was a being glorified with that glory which he as Son had with the Father before the world was, (See John, 17:1-5,) we may conclude that his relation as Son was the same before the world was."
Though Trott affirms that Christ was the Son of God before his incarnation and prior to his being begotten via the virgin and from the dead, yet he does not believe that the Son of God is eternally the Son of the Father. Again, the views of Trott are a mixing of Arianism and Sabellianism.
Trott continued:
"But still, this life being in the Word imparted to him a distinct and compound personality, as has been noticed. This complex person could not as noticed, be in the station of a servant under the law, without being made under it, in an additional nature, neither could he in his complex person, though in that person he was God, sustain the relation of the absolute God, but was exactly adapted to sustain the relation of a Son, and was therefore set up, and brought forth in the everlasting covenant as the Son of God; and the same mighty power of God was manifested in thus bringing him forth as the Son of God and Head of his church and people, and they in him in that Life which was embraced in his distinct personality, as was manifested in raising Christ from the dead. See Eph., 1:19,20."
Here Trott seems to affirm that Christ was the eternal Son of God, but not so in actuality but only in the mind and purpose of God, or theoretically. Trott is affirming that there would be no Son of God without creation or redemption.
Trott continued:
"Again, the manhood of Christ was made of the seed of the woman; but we are not warranted to believe that the life was made of any created substance. The account we have is, that the new man, which must be the life, or Christ, in us, was After God created in righteousness and true holiness. From the testimony of Scripture, I conclude that the Word as the Son, occupied the same exalted station at the right hand of the Father, having the immediate government in his own hands, before the foundation of the world as after his exaltation from the dead. Hence the glory which he now has is the same that he had with the Father before the world was; and the Word was with God. Hence it is declared, that "All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made."
But these relative terms by no means imply that God did not exist antecedent to his being a Father; yea, the very relation implies that the Father had an existence independent of his paternity.
So of the Son, when we take into consideration the character given of him in the Scriptures, we must believe that he existed as God independently of his Sonship."
In these words Trott denies the eternal relation of God as Father and Son, affirming that God was once neither Father, Son, or Holy Spirit. It is because of creation and redemption that God takes on the existences as such. This is Sabellianism, or the affirmation of a modalistic or economic trinity.
In closing it must be understood that these views of Trott were widespread among the first generation Hardshells and it was not till many years later, when the views of Clark prevailed. One must wonder how Hardshells will deal with the fact that their ancestors held such views. What does this do to their Landmarker views about church succession?
"Again, on page 114, Elder C., though he names no one in this letter, yet he evidently refers to those named in the accompanying communication, says:
"I have preached and written against their doctrine concerning the Son of God, and charged that it is Arianism – and I here repeat it."
In the foregoing paragraph, he speaks of being in readiness to prove upon us the sentiments with which he charges us: yes, just as he proved me an Arian, in the specimen I gave of his manner of proving it, on a preceding page...But we will come to the charge which Elder Clark boasts of having made against us. I entreat Elder C., and any others who unite with him in these charges, to follow me in the inquiry as to the truth of this charge, with candor. As to what Arius actually believed, I know not; but in speaking of Arianism, I speak of it as described by those who wrote of it. Elder C., and others with him, generally, will, I presume, admit that Athanasians, and Tri-personalists, generally, hold that the Son no otherwise exists as God, than as he is the Son of God, or than as he was begotten of the Father; that in his Godhead, therefore, as well as a person in the Godhead he was begotten of the Father; whilst they hold that he is of the same substance coequal and coeternal with the Father. They will, also, I think, admit that Arius occupied exactly the same starting ground with the other party, viz: that the Son no otherwise existed than as he was the Son of God, or begotten of the Father. But here they split in their conclusions from this common position. Arius drew the conclusion, that as the Son only existed in his Sonship, he, from the nature of that relation to the Father, and from the fact that his existence was a begotten existence, must necessarily be posterior in his individual existence to the Father who begat him, and hence was not coequal and coeternal with the Father. I must confess, if I had not the Scriptures for my guide, but had to take the same leading position which Athansius and Arius both occupied in the forming an opinion of the being of the Son of God, that I must take Arius' side of the question, as being far more consistent than the other. But I, and those with me, do not occupy the same original position with them, at all: hence, I have offered to prove, if any of those accusers would meet me in arguments on the point, that they are far more assimilated to Arianism than we are: but they have never consented to meet me on that point. The position which we occupy, and the ground on which we stand, is, that what God has revealed of himself in the Scriptures, we are safe in receiving as truth; what He has not revealed, it is presumption in mortals, and would be in angels, to attempt to inquire into; that God has revealed himself as three, as the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and that these three are one; that they are so three, that there are points of distinction by which they are severally declared in the Scripture; and so one, that to us there is but one God. Hence, when either of the three is spoken of as God, we understand it to be that one God in all his fullness of attributes and glory."
Is the view of Clark and other Trinitarians who affirm the eternal sonship of Christ more akin to the views of the heretic Arius or is the view of Trott more akin to them? Trott thinks that those who affirm that Christ always existed as the Son of God in the Godhead is similar to Arianism because both affirm that Christ no otherwise existed except as the Son of God. But, the likeness is only slight, for Arius did not believe that the sonship of Christ was eternal, just as the Fatherhood of God. On the other hand, Arius and the view of Trott are much more alike in that they both affirm that the sonship of Christ is not eternal, but denotes a creation. The difference is that Arius did not believe Christ existed in any sense prior to his becoming the Son of God while Trott believes that Christ existed as God before he became the Son of God. The view of Trott is similar to those who say Christ was the eternal Word, or God, before his incarnational sonship via the virgin. But, Trott can say that Christ was God before he became the Son of God because he believes that God is one person, the sonship only being a mode in which the one person God reveals himself.
Trott continued:
"Hence our conclusion is, that if God exists absolutely independent of any one, or of any act by which he is brought into existence, then each of the three must alike so exist as God: and as we find it not declared in the Scriptures that God exists as three distinct persons, or that one of these persons was begotten of the other, and that the third is breathed into existence, we reject the whole, as fabulous. Again: we find the Son of God declared in the Scriptures, and all those characteristics, or attributes of Sonship, so ascribed to him, that we feel bound to believe that he is actually the Son of God, the only begotten of the Father. We further find this Son of God so identified with the Word, that we believe that the Son is the Word, in all his fullness of the Godhead. Hence, as we believe the Godhead cannot be changed from its absolutely independent self-existence, so as truly to sustain the relation and characteristics of Sonship, we believe the Word has that in himself, and has had from the beginning, which enables him fully to sustain this relation of Sonship, and of being begotten of the Father, without diminishing, or changing the attributes of his essential Godhead, or ceasing to be the one God. In reference to what his characteristics of Sonship consist in, I shall have to speak more fully in another place. But I have more summed up, in as definite and clear words I can, my belief of God, as existing in Trinity, for I do believe in a Trinity, but not in tripersonality; and in the Son of God, as being in his person, truly, both God and the Son of God."
Trott confesses that he denies the historic doctrine of the Trinity, that God is three persons, and favors the Sabellian economic or modalistic Trinity. In doing so, he goes against the Old Baptist confessions and can hardly claim to be an Old Baptist.
Trott continued:
"I will now pass to notice the idea of creatureship as applied to Christ in the Scriptures, in distinction from his being made flesh. It will, I presume, be admitted that in God's Son being made of a woman, the idea of creatureship is ascribed to him in person, and that without derogating from his Godhead or making him a "created God;" strange, then, that such a general alarm should be produced at the idea of creatureship being applied to him, as he is the life of his people. But surely, if men inspired of God have, without reserve, in giving their testimony of Jesus, attached this idea to him, I think I need not be afraid to do it, though opposed by friends and foes. But I have never represented that as the Son he is inferior to the Father because God created him, as Elder C. has stated. I have based his subordination to the Father upon his relation as Son, as well as upon the testimony of Scripture, showing that he sustained such inferior relation. Elder C. admits that we have such expressions as these: "The beginning of the creation of God," – "The first born of every creature," to sustain our views; but he appears not to admit them to be Scripture. They, however, will be found Rev. 3:14, and Col. 1:15. How is Christ The beginning of the creation of God, according to the proper import of the words, if he was not in some sense the first of God's creating? And how the first born of every creature, if not in some sense a creature?"
It is easy to see how Elder Clark would charge Elder Trott with Arianism based upon Trott's remarks upon Rev. 3: 14 and Col. 1: 15. They are the same views that Arius and his followers took upon the passages and the same views modern Arians also take upon them, such as "Jehovah's Witnesses." Of course, these passages do not teach that the Son of God was begotten in time or created. These passages speak of Christ being, besides the eikon (image) of God the Father, but as being the "prōtotokos" (firstborn) of every creature and the "archē" (beginning) of God's creation. These terms do not denote origin but rank. They do not denote being first made but first in rank. Christ, the Son of God is "prōtotokos" because he is the rightful heir of all things. Not only were all things created by him but "for him." He is "the heir of all things." (Heb. 1: 2) Further, if Christ being "the beginning" ("archē") means that he had a beginning in time, then his being "the ending" or "the last" (Rev. 1: 8, 11; 21: 6; 22: 13) means that Christ will have an end, will one day be no more. Also, as Elder Clark argued, Paul explains what he means by saying that Christ is the "prōtotokos" by saying "for by him were all things created." If the view of Arius or Trott were true, Paul should have said "for God created him first."
Trott continued:
"How Christ is the begotten Son of God, may, I conceive, be illustrated by his second begetting as the Son of God; for there are evidently two begettings spoken of in the Scripture to him. John says, speaking of the Word being made flesh, "We beheld (not shall behold,) his glory, the glory as of the only begotten Son of the Father, &c." And at the baptism of Jesus, and in his transfiguration on the mount, the voice from heaven was, "This is (not shall be,) my beloved Son, &c." Thus he was declared to be already the begotten Son of God. But the begetting of which I speak as a second begetting, was an after event to these. It is named in Psalms 2:7, "Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee." This was spoken prophetically, and therefore though spoken in the present tense, had a future reference. So an inspired Apostle applied it (Acts 13:33,) when he said, "God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again, as it is also written in the second Psalm, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee." The apostle makes this begetting to be the same with his being "The first begotten of the dead." Rev. 1:5."
Christ did not have multiple "begettings." He has always been the Son of God, eternally the only begotten of the Father. The begetting from the womb of the virgin and his being begotten from the dead did not make him the Son of God but only revealed him to be such.
Trott continued:
"Thus it appears to me that the terms only begotten Son of God are according to their proper import, strictly descriptive of that relation which Christ as Mediator sustains to God. But as this exaltation of Christ was a being glorified with that glory which he as Son had with the Father before the world was, (See John, 17:1-5,) we may conclude that his relation as Son was the same before the world was."
Though Trott affirms that Christ was the Son of God before his incarnation and prior to his being begotten via the virgin and from the dead, yet he does not believe that the Son of God is eternally the Son of the Father. Again, the views of Trott are a mixing of Arianism and Sabellianism.
Trott continued:
"But still, this life being in the Word imparted to him a distinct and compound personality, as has been noticed. This complex person could not as noticed, be in the station of a servant under the law, without being made under it, in an additional nature, neither could he in his complex person, though in that person he was God, sustain the relation of the absolute God, but was exactly adapted to sustain the relation of a Son, and was therefore set up, and brought forth in the everlasting covenant as the Son of God; and the same mighty power of God was manifested in thus bringing him forth as the Son of God and Head of his church and people, and they in him in that Life which was embraced in his distinct personality, as was manifested in raising Christ from the dead. See Eph., 1:19,20."
Here Trott seems to affirm that Christ was the eternal Son of God, but not so in actuality but only in the mind and purpose of God, or theoretically. Trott is affirming that there would be no Son of God without creation or redemption.
Trott continued:
"Again, the manhood of Christ was made of the seed of the woman; but we are not warranted to believe that the life was made of any created substance. The account we have is, that the new man, which must be the life, or Christ, in us, was After God created in righteousness and true holiness. From the testimony of Scripture, I conclude that the Word as the Son, occupied the same exalted station at the right hand of the Father, having the immediate government in his own hands, before the foundation of the world as after his exaltation from the dead. Hence the glory which he now has is the same that he had with the Father before the world was; and the Word was with God. Hence it is declared, that "All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made."
But these relative terms by no means imply that God did not exist antecedent to his being a Father; yea, the very relation implies that the Father had an existence independent of his paternity.
So of the Son, when we take into consideration the character given of him in the Scriptures, we must believe that he existed as God independently of his Sonship."
In these words Trott denies the eternal relation of God as Father and Son, affirming that God was once neither Father, Son, or Holy Spirit. It is because of creation and redemption that God takes on the existences as such. This is Sabellianism, or the affirmation of a modalistic or economic trinity.
In closing it must be understood that these views of Trott were widespread among the first generation Hardshells and it was not till many years later, when the views of Clark prevailed. One must wonder how Hardshells will deal with the fact that their ancestors held such views. What does this do to their Landmarker views about church succession?
Friday, May 10, 2013
Regeneration vs. New Birth
From the Signs of the Times of June 1851.
"The life and death of the dear Redeemer, met all the claims of the divine law, and satisfied the demands of timmutable justice. But it must be seen by all intelligent christians that redemption did not impart divine life to his subjects, without which none can "know the only true God and Jesus Christ whom he hath sent." This is the effect of regeneration, from whence springs the new birth, or "being born again." (Elder Thomas P. Dudley - see here)
In my book on the Hardshell Baptist Cult, I have given evidence that a large majority of first generation Hardshells believed that regeneration and being born again were not the same thing, that they argued for a three stage model of spiritual birth, arguing that "regeneration" was equivalent to the implanting of the male seed (as in natural conception), and that conviction of sin was equivalent to being in the womb, or in darkness and prior to being "delivered" from the womb, and that the "birth" was the emergence from the womb of darkness and comparable to being converted by the Gospel. Here is more evidence that such a view was again asserted. Such a view does not make Gospel conversion optional, but necessary for being eternally saved. When Jesus said - "you must be born again" - the first Hardshells believed, as their articles of faith stated, that the elect must be both regenerated AND converted.
"The life and death of the dear Redeemer, met all the claims of the divine law, and satisfied the demands of timmutable justice. But it must be seen by all intelligent christians that redemption did not impart divine life to his subjects, without which none can "know the only true God and Jesus Christ whom he hath sent." This is the effect of regeneration, from whence springs the new birth, or "being born again." (Elder Thomas P. Dudley - see here)
In my book on the Hardshell Baptist Cult, I have given evidence that a large majority of first generation Hardshells believed that regeneration and being born again were not the same thing, that they argued for a three stage model of spiritual birth, arguing that "regeneration" was equivalent to the implanting of the male seed (as in natural conception), and that conviction of sin was equivalent to being in the womb, or in darkness and prior to being "delivered" from the womb, and that the "birth" was the emergence from the womb of darkness and comparable to being converted by the Gospel. Here is more evidence that such a view was again asserted. Such a view does not make Gospel conversion optional, but necessary for being eternally saved. When Jesus said - "you must be born again" - the first Hardshells believed, as their articles of faith stated, that the elect must be both regenerated AND converted.
Thursday, May 9, 2013
Other "Elect" or Other "Salvation"?
I hardly know what title to give to this posting. Several seem fitting. I could borrow that of Brother Garrett's post Fanciful Interpretation because the quote I pen below certainly falls into that category. I could name it A Common Contradiction because the writer is guilty of committing one that I have seen numerous times from within his order. I have settled, however, on the one which it has as I want of focus on one particular error made.
2 Thes. 2:10 is a key passage in scripture which shows that God's decree of election is compatible with evangelism. The Apostle Paul did not let his allegiance to the former hinder him from preaching the gospel in its fullness.
He writes:
"Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory (2 Timothy 2:10).
Since this passage is an obvious gospel means passage it is necessary for the Conditional Hardshells to go to work in explaining it away so as to fit within their paradigm. One in particular, Elder Kerry Lathrop, has this to say on the passage in an article called The Middle Phase Of Salvation (a contradictory title for his system, by the way):
"It is also clear who the recipients of this salvation is, the elect. Paul rather dwells on the subject of obtaining another phase of salvation. He makes it clear by stating he has endured all things so that the elect may ALSO obtain this salvation. The using of the words 'also' and 'with' implies that it is associated with something else. The salvation that Paul is speaking of here is a timely salvation for the elect of God who are eternally secure in Christ."
So, according to the author the ALSO has nothing to do with Paul's desire for OTHER of God's elect to experience the eternal salvation he received, but for the elect to receive ANOTHER salvation in addition to the one they already had.
Fanciful interpretation?
Check.
Ignoring the context?
Check.
Approached with a preconceived gird?
This interpretation would not have been reached otherwise.
How come other writers, commentators, and theologians don't see Paul expressing his desire to see the elect get saved a second time? The learned John Gill comments on the phrase:
"that they may also obtain; as well as himself, and other chosen vessels of salvation, who were called by grace already; for the apostle is speaking of such of the elect, who were, as yet, in a state of nature:"
As well as HIMSELF, not as well as ANOTHER salvation! Gill correctly sees the true intent of the Apostle Paul's inscription as intending to convey his utmost desire to see other members of the elect family come to salvation.
Matthew Henry comments as well:
"Next to the salvation of our own souls we should be willing to do and suffer any thing to promote the salvation of the souls of others."
Let's see. The salvation is said to be the salvation which is "in Christ Jesus". If Lathrop is correct, then why are not all who are united to Christ in the new birth made definite recipients, but only the relative few who get to hear the gospel preached? Is there a salvation "in Christ" not conveyed to those who are made partakers of Christ?
The salvation is singular: THE salvation in Christ Jesus. If this qualifier has reference to time salvation then is Paul contrasting this with an eternal salvation which is NOT in Christ Jesus?
Since Paul is considering God’s elect as in their state of nature, as Gill correctly notes, the salvation he desires for them to see must be that particular one received in regeneration: that one great eternal salvation in Christ. Hardshells never speak of gospel time salvation forthcoming for the unregenerate. It is strictly a post-regeneration experience. Only if the Apostle was treating the elect as already regenerated could Lathrop’s theory gain any footing.
And should not a passage which explicitly clarifies the salvation under consideration is associated with "eternal glory" be interpreted as pertaining to eternal salvation? Do not the addition of these words stand in defiance of the reader who is trying to squeeze it into a temporal framework? In such a case, would not "temporal glory" be a more fitting expression? Only one who has an a priori commitment to anti-means could stare "eternal glory" in the face and continue with a temporal application!
Paul is not expressing in this place his desire to see those of God's elect, already saved, get saved yet again. He was no Hyper-Calvinist, but rightly understood himself as an instrument through whom God would administer salvation to those of His whom He had yet to call. The "also" is not to be associated with "something else", but SOMEONE else.
2 Thes. 2:10 is a key passage in scripture which shows that God's decree of election is compatible with evangelism. The Apostle Paul did not let his allegiance to the former hinder him from preaching the gospel in its fullness.
He writes:
"Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory (2 Timothy 2:10).
Since this passage is an obvious gospel means passage it is necessary for the Conditional Hardshells to go to work in explaining it away so as to fit within their paradigm. One in particular, Elder Kerry Lathrop, has this to say on the passage in an article called The Middle Phase Of Salvation (a contradictory title for his system, by the way):
"It is also clear who the recipients of this salvation is, the elect. Paul rather dwells on the subject of obtaining another phase of salvation. He makes it clear by stating he has endured all things so that the elect may ALSO obtain this salvation. The using of the words 'also' and 'with' implies that it is associated with something else. The salvation that Paul is speaking of here is a timely salvation for the elect of God who are eternally secure in Christ."
So, according to the author the ALSO has nothing to do with Paul's desire for OTHER of God's elect to experience the eternal salvation he received, but for the elect to receive ANOTHER salvation in addition to the one they already had.
Fanciful interpretation?
Check.
Ignoring the context?
Check.
Approached with a preconceived gird?
This interpretation would not have been reached otherwise.
How come other writers, commentators, and theologians don't see Paul expressing his desire to see the elect get saved a second time? The learned John Gill comments on the phrase:
"that they may also obtain; as well as himself, and other chosen vessels of salvation, who were called by grace already; for the apostle is speaking of such of the elect, who were, as yet, in a state of nature:"
As well as HIMSELF, not as well as ANOTHER salvation! Gill correctly sees the true intent of the Apostle Paul's inscription as intending to convey his utmost desire to see other members of the elect family come to salvation.
Matthew Henry comments as well:
"Next to the salvation of our own souls we should be willing to do and suffer any thing to promote the salvation of the souls of others."
Let's see. The salvation is said to be the salvation which is "in Christ Jesus". If Lathrop is correct, then why are not all who are united to Christ in the new birth made definite recipients, but only the relative few who get to hear the gospel preached? Is there a salvation "in Christ" not conveyed to those who are made partakers of Christ?
The salvation is singular: THE salvation in Christ Jesus. If this qualifier has reference to time salvation then is Paul contrasting this with an eternal salvation which is NOT in Christ Jesus?
Since Paul is considering God’s elect as in their state of nature, as Gill correctly notes, the salvation he desires for them to see must be that particular one received in regeneration: that one great eternal salvation in Christ. Hardshells never speak of gospel time salvation forthcoming for the unregenerate. It is strictly a post-regeneration experience. Only if the Apostle was treating the elect as already regenerated could Lathrop’s theory gain any footing.
And should not a passage which explicitly clarifies the salvation under consideration is associated with "eternal glory" be interpreted as pertaining to eternal salvation? Do not the addition of these words stand in defiance of the reader who is trying to squeeze it into a temporal framework? In such a case, would not "temporal glory" be a more fitting expression? Only one who has an a priori commitment to anti-means could stare "eternal glory" in the face and continue with a temporal application!
Paul is not expressing in this place his desire to see those of God's elect, already saved, get saved yet again. He was no Hyper-Calvinist, but rightly understood himself as an instrument through whom God would administer salvation to those of His whom He had yet to call. The "also" is not to be associated with "something else", but SOMEONE else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)