"Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils (Greek demons) also believe, and tremble." (James 2: 19)
I have reasoned with Hardshells and others who think that Cornelius was a saved or regenerate man before he came to believe in Jesus. I have already written on this in Chpt. 88 - Hardshell Proof Textx X. One of the reasons why this cannot be true is because of the word of God to Cornelius:
"...Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou, and all thy house shall be saved." (Acts 11: 13-14)
Hardshells insist that the salvation promised to Cornelius and his household, as a result of believing the Gospel, was not eternal salvation from sin and Hell, but a mere temporal salvation. They insist that Cornelius was already eternally saved, and would be finally saved, whether he ever heard the Gospel or believed in the Lord Jesus Christ. But, numerous Scriptures prove that all who do not believe in Christ are lost. For instance:
1) "He who does not believe shall be condemned." (Mark 16: 16) 2)
2) "...and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." (John 3: 36) 3)
3) "...if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." (John 8: 24)
4) "If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha." (I Cor. 15: 22)
Hardshells argue that Cornelius' fear of God was proof of his regeneration and I cited the above words of James to show that such a deduction was untenable. If fearing God, in itself, was proof of a regenerated state, then the demons would be regenerate. One Hardshell recently attempted to answer this rebuttal by saying that it was not appropos to cite the case of demons and apply them to the case of men. In other words, he argued that it is true that the fear of God by demons does not prove they are regenerate but the fear of God by men does prove that they are regenerate. But, his reply should be directed to the Apostle James for James thought it was apropos to use the case of demons to prove his case relative to men.
James affirmed that believing in one God was not sufficient to prove that one is saved, and he brings up the case of demon belief in one God to prove it. But, our Hardshell opponent would say to James - "you are correct to argue that belief in one God by demons does not prove that demons are saved, but you are wrong to infer the same with regard to men; men who believe in one God are saved." But, James does use the case of demon faith in God to prove that men who believe in one God are not saved. Likewise, James proves that one can believe in one God and fear that one God and still be lost. And, what is the proof James gives? He says that the demons believe and fear God. But, they are lost. Ergo, men who believe in one God and fear God are not saved. What James is showing is that mere belief in one God and fear of him is not enough for salvation.
Besides, though Cornelius feared God, there was yet no faith in Christ. Fear of God, by itself, is no proof of regeneration. Faith is what proves that a man is regenerate and there is no record that Cornelius had faith in Christ before he heard the Gospel. In fact, Peter testifies that it was through his preaching to Cornelius that Cornelius came to faith.
"And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe." (Acts 15: 7)
Cornelius was not a believer in Jesus before he heard Peter preach to him about Jesus. This is what Paul taught.
"How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent?...So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Rom. 10: 14-17)
How could Cornelius be saved before he believed and called upon the name of the Lord? If faith comes by hearing the word of God, and Cornelius had not yet heard it, then Cornelius did not have faith till he heard Peter preach the word.
Further, the Apostles interpreted the coming to faith in Christ, by Cornelius, as being equivalent to Cornelius being "granted repentance unto life." (Acts 11: 18)
Now let us look at some other men who feared God before they were saved, or men who feared God and his judgment and who were not saved.
"And as he reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come, Felix trembled, and answered, Go thy way for this time; when I have a convenient season, I will call for thee." (Acts 24: 25)
This was said of Felix, a wicked man who, at the time this was written, was clearly an unsaved man. Yet, the preaching of coming judgment caused him to tremble for fear. This is no unique experience. Lots of sinners have been made to fear when under conviction of sin. On this point Dr. Gill wrote:
"And this sort of fear arises, 2a1. From a sense of sin, and the guilt of it on the conscience, without a view of pardon; thus no sooner were Adam and Eve sensible of their sin and their nakedness by it, but they fled through fear from the presence of God, and hid themselves among the trees of the garden, as yet having no discovery of pardoning grace made to them; for said Adam to God calling for him, "I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself", Ge 3:10. Thus a wicked man, conscious of his guilt, flees when no man pursues, and is like Pashur, a Magormissabib, "fear round about", a terror to himself and others.
2a2. From the law entering the conscience of a sinner, having broken it and working wrath in it; for the law, when it comes with powerful convictions of sin, and with menaces of punishment for it, "it worketh" present "wrath", or a sense of it in the conscience, and leaves a "fearful looking for of judgment" to come, and of "fiery indignation" which shall consume "the adversaries" of God; when persons in such a condition and circumstances would be glad of rocks and mountains to fall on them and hide them from the wrath of God, which appears to them intolerable.
2a3. From the curse of the law, and the weight of it on the conscience. The voice of the law is terrible, it is a voice of words which they that heard intreated they might hear no more. It accuses of sin, pronounces guilty for it, is a ministration of condemnation and a killing letter; its language is, "Cursed is everyone that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them", #Ga 3:10 which to hear is dreadful when the conscience of a sinner is awakened; but how much more terrible is it, when a sinner feels as it were in his own apprehension all the curses of the law upon him, as he does when "the anger of the Lord, and his jealousy/ smoke against" him, "and all the curses written in the lair lie upon him", #De 29:20 with what slavish fear must he be then filled?
2a4. From a view of death as the demerit of sin; "The wages of sin is death", the just desert of it; sin is the sting of death, gives it its venom and fatal influence, and makes it that terrible thing it is; and some "through fear of death are all their life time subject to bondage", and are under a continual servile fear of it.
2a5. From a dread of hell and everlasting damnation. This fear is of the same kind with that of devils, who believe there is one God and tremble; tremble at present wrath and future torment. So wicked men, who have a fearful apprehension of everlasting punishment, it appears to them greater than they can bear, as it did to Cain." (on "The Fear Of God" in his Body of Practical Divinity)
Gill is right. Unregenerate men, when awakened to their danger, feel a deep sense of fear towards God and to coming judgment. Yet, this in itself is no proof of regeneration as Gill and other great Calvinists have pointed out. (See my chapters on "Hardshells and Conviction" for a further analysis of this issue.
"And the keeper of the prison awaking out of his sleep, and seeing the prison doors open, he drew out his sword, and would have killed himself, supposing that the prisoners had been fled. But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm: for we are all here. Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." (Acts 16: 27-31)
This jailer was under conviction of sin and possessed a fear of God and yet he knew that he was lost and needed to be saved. In answer to his question - "what must I do to be saved?" - the Apostle, had he been a Hardshell, would have said - "why nothing! The fact that you are in fear of God is evidence that you are already saved."
"Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences." (II Cor. 5: 11)
On this verse Spurgeon wrote in his autobiograhphy:
"I sometimes preach 'the terror of the Lord,' as Paul did when he said, 'Kinowing therefor the terror of the Lord, we persuade men;' but I do it as did the apostle, to bring them to a sense of their sins." (pg. 54 - see here)
Just as Felix trembled at the preaching of a final judgment day by the Apostle Paul, so we hope that sinners will likewise fall under such dread and fear. For such are good subjects for hearing the good news about salvation in Christ. The fear of God is what ought to lead men to Christ. It is a preparatory work to regeneration, not an evidence of it. The Hebrews who stood before Mt. Sinai when it "burned with fire," and its "blackness, and darkness, and tempest," (Heb. 12: 18) were terrified, and "so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake." (vs. 21) But, not all the Hebrews who stood before Mt. Sinai were born again children of God. In fact, the most of them were not. Yet, they all feared the God who appeared to them.
C. B. Hassell wrote:
"Should the Lord create an humble, teachable and inquiring disposition in the heart of an inhabitant of China, Japan or the unexplored parts of Africa, He would sooner send an angel from Heaven, or a minister from the uttermost part of the earth, to show him the way of salvation, than leave him destitute of that knowledge, for which he longs and prays without ceasing. The alms and supplications of such persons spring from right principles and motives, and go up as a memorial before God, not to merit His favor, but to plead with Him to fulfill His gracious promises." (pg. 203 of Hassell's History)
Cornelius' heart was prepared by the Lord for the preaching of the Gospel, or for salvation. His heart was plowed up and prepared like the good soil in the parable of the sower and the seed. But, such preparation is not regeneration, as our Old Baptist forefathers understood, but was preparation for it. Whereever there is such a heart and soul, the Lord will get the Gospel to that person, as the elder Hassell stated. When Christ said that he "must go through Samaria" (John 4: 4), it was because a woman was there who needed the Gospel, needed to be saved, and whose heart the Lord had prepared for it. But, she was not saved till he came to her with the good news about living water. The Hardshells need to understand the difference between a heart that is being prepared for regeneration and regeneration itself.
Monday, August 19, 2013
Saturday, August 17, 2013
Through Belief
"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ." (II Thess. 2: 13-14)
The word "belief" in this passage is another way of translating the Greek word "pistis," though it is generally translated as "faith." Strong gives its definition as - "conviction of the truth of anything, belief; in the NT of a conviction or belief respecting man's relationship to God and divine things, generally with the included idea of trust and holy fervour born of faith and joined with it."
The fact that the King James Version translate pistis as "belief" in the above passage is detrimental to the Hardshells often defining it as someking of physical substance, or as "ability to believe." Also, the definition given by Strong is detrimental to the Hardshell idea that "pistis" sometimes denotes some kind of "seed faith" which lacks any belief of any truth.
One could translate "belief of the truth" as "faith of the truth." The object of faith is truth, Gospel truth, truth about God and Christ. Where there is no knowledge of God and Christ, there can be no faith.
Hardshells cannot possibly make the salvation of this text into a mere temporal salvation, seeing it is that salvation that is the result of God's having chosen. It is eternal salvation. This salvation is said to be "through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth." Hardshells, however, do not believe that eternal salvation is "through belief of the truth."
The text also says that the chosen people are "called" to this salvation "by our gospel." The word "by" (Greek "dia") denotes instrumentality. The end of being called by the gospel is "to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ," which cannot be interpreted to be a mere temporal blessing, but as descriptive of that final salvation to which the elect are chosen.
The first Hardshells understood all this. This passage was often cited by them, in the Black Rock Address, in their first periodicals, such as in "The Primitive Baptist," the "Signs of the Times," the "Christian Doctrinal Advocate and Spiritual Monitor," and in the "Old Baptist Banner." They all affirmed that this verse taught the necessity of being converted to Christ by the preaching of the Gospel in order to be eternally saved. It would be good if our modern Hardshells would return to the Old Baptist faith regarding the teaching of these words of the Apostle.
The word "belief" in this passage is another way of translating the Greek word "pistis," though it is generally translated as "faith." Strong gives its definition as - "conviction of the truth of anything, belief; in the NT of a conviction or belief respecting man's relationship to God and divine things, generally with the included idea of trust and holy fervour born of faith and joined with it."
The fact that the King James Version translate pistis as "belief" in the above passage is detrimental to the Hardshells often defining it as someking of physical substance, or as "ability to believe." Also, the definition given by Strong is detrimental to the Hardshell idea that "pistis" sometimes denotes some kind of "seed faith" which lacks any belief of any truth.
One could translate "belief of the truth" as "faith of the truth." The object of faith is truth, Gospel truth, truth about God and Christ. Where there is no knowledge of God and Christ, there can be no faith.
Hardshells cannot possibly make the salvation of this text into a mere temporal salvation, seeing it is that salvation that is the result of God's having chosen. It is eternal salvation. This salvation is said to be "through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth." Hardshells, however, do not believe that eternal salvation is "through belief of the truth."
The text also says that the chosen people are "called" to this salvation "by our gospel." The word "by" (Greek "dia") denotes instrumentality. The end of being called by the gospel is "to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ," which cannot be interpreted to be a mere temporal blessing, but as descriptive of that final salvation to which the elect are chosen.
The first Hardshells understood all this. This passage was often cited by them, in the Black Rock Address, in their first periodicals, such as in "The Primitive Baptist," the "Signs of the Times," the "Christian Doctrinal Advocate and Spiritual Monitor," and in the "Old Baptist Banner." They all affirmed that this verse taught the necessity of being converted to Christ by the preaching of the Gospel in order to be eternally saved. It would be good if our modern Hardshells would return to the Old Baptist faith regarding the teaching of these words of the Apostle.
Friday, August 16, 2013
Hardshells on Immediate Regeneration
In an article titled "Total Depravity Requires Immediate Holy Spirit Regeneration" (see here) a Hardshell apologist wrote:
"Consider the testimony of the following verses that speak to the deadness of man's natural condition and thus underscore the need for the immediacy of regeneration and the folly of all other methods which rely upon human means."
I have dealt with this Hardshell argumentation in numerous places in my ongoing book and in my blogs. For instance, I wrote this on the subject:
"But, even in the Hardshell scheme of regeneration, dead people do hear the words of Christ before they are made alive! The Hardshell says that the dead cannot hear. Yet, they also teach that the dead must hear to be regenerated. They have no problem putting "hearing" before life when it comes to the words Christ himself speaks to the dead, but not those same words he speaks through the preacher of the gospel! I will deal with this other novel idea of the Hardshells, the "Direct Speaking" theory of regeneration, under a separate chapter. Brother Ross has dealt with this novel theory extensively and I hope to cite his remarks and extend upon them. Did the dead bones in Ezekiel 37 not hear the words of God, through Ezekiel, BEFORE they came to life?" ( "Chapter Nine - Hardshell Logic on Regeneration")
In another posting titled "Chpt. 86 - Hardshell Proof Texts VII" I dealt with the Hardshell argumentation on how a belief in total depravity necessitates a regeneration apart from the use of Gospel preaching. Please read that chapter.
"Consider the testimony of the following verses that speak to the deadness of man's natural condition and thus underscore the need for the immediacy of regeneration and the folly of all other methods which rely upon human means."
I have dealt with this Hardshell argumentation in numerous places in my ongoing book and in my blogs. For instance, I wrote this on the subject:
"But, even in the Hardshell scheme of regeneration, dead people do hear the words of Christ before they are made alive! The Hardshell says that the dead cannot hear. Yet, they also teach that the dead must hear to be regenerated. They have no problem putting "hearing" before life when it comes to the words Christ himself speaks to the dead, but not those same words he speaks through the preacher of the gospel! I will deal with this other novel idea of the Hardshells, the "Direct Speaking" theory of regeneration, under a separate chapter. Brother Ross has dealt with this novel theory extensively and I hope to cite his remarks and extend upon them. Did the dead bones in Ezekiel 37 not hear the words of God, through Ezekiel, BEFORE they came to life?" ( "Chapter Nine - Hardshell Logic on Regeneration")
In another posting titled "Chpt. 86 - Hardshell Proof Texts VII" I dealt with the Hardshell argumentation on how a belief in total depravity necessitates a regeneration apart from the use of Gospel preaching. Please read that chapter.
Hardshells on Cornelius
A "Primitive Baptist" has started a blog and one of the entries he made was for the purpose of trying to prove that Cornelius was a saved and regenerate man before he came to believe the Gospel or believe in Christ. He wrote:
"That said, what additional data do we have regarding Cornelius in Acts 10:2? The bible says that he "feared God." What does this tell us about Cornelius? Well, it ELIMINATES the possibility that he was unregenerate because Paul says such men have "no fear of God before their eyes."(Rom 3:18) The moment you affirm that Cornelius "feared God," you have admitted that he was "saved" in the sense of being regenerate (the Tit 3:5 sense), and all who are regenerate are already in possession of eternal life."
Here is the comment I left him.
Dear Brother, by your logic the demons are also regenerated because they tremble before God, which shows that they have a fear of God. (James 2: 19) Further, you have someone who does not believe in Jesus saved, and yet the Bible says that the wrath of God abides on the one who is not a believer in Jesus. (John 3: 36) (see here for the posting in his blog titled "theearstohear")
"That said, what additional data do we have regarding Cornelius in Acts 10:2? The bible says that he "feared God." What does this tell us about Cornelius? Well, it ELIMINATES the possibility that he was unregenerate because Paul says such men have "no fear of God before their eyes."(Rom 3:18) The moment you affirm that Cornelius "feared God," you have admitted that he was "saved" in the sense of being regenerate (the Tit 3:5 sense), and all who are regenerate are already in possession of eternal life."
Here is the comment I left him.
Dear Brother, by your logic the demons are also regenerated because they tremble before God, which shows that they have a fear of God. (James 2: 19) Further, you have someone who does not believe in Jesus saved, and yet the Bible says that the wrath of God abides on the one who is not a believer in Jesus. (John 3: 36) (see here for the posting in his blog titled "theearstohear")
Is Evangelical Faith a Gift or Not?
If a blessing is bestowed through instrumentality can it be called a gift of God?
If we remain true to the premise of many Primitive Baptists, then the answer must be no. Whatsoever involves men or any other means must be obtained by works. As Elder S.T. Tolley comments on Ephesians 2:8:
"If, in fact, it should be(as some assume and wish it to be) that the faith mentioned here refers to gospel faith, which is brought about by the preaching of a preacher who must preach the gospel to a sinner who must hear, believe the message, and accept Christ (sic) as his Savior in order to be born again. But that simply cannot be allowed by the scriptural language where it says this is "...NOT of yourselves," but it is "...the gift of God...not of works..." The faith mentioned here is the faith that God GIVES to the ones chosen to salvation before the world began. It is that spiritual element which enables the born-again child of God to understand the gospel message and believe it. This is bestowed in the operation of the new birth---not by the preaching of the gospel." ("Must the Elect Family of God Hear and Believe the Gospel of Christ in Order to be Saved into Heaven's Glory?", The Christian Baptist, vol 35)
This is what happens when one has created this dichotomy in his mind because of an a priori commitment to anti-means. Gospel-faith is considered as something distinct from the faith GIVEN by God, as if they are not the same.
Yet I read on another church’s website something contrary:
“We believe that evangelical faith is the gift of God (emphasis mine – KF) and good works are the fruit of faith, and justify us in the sight of men and angels, as evidence of our gracious state. Eph. 2:8, 10; Gal. 5:22; Rom. 5:1; Heb. 11:6." (see Here)
So is evangelical faith a gift of God or not? One says no. The other says yes. Certainly evangelical faith is a gift of God, but it is consistent with the teaching of time salvation to say that it isn't. It is part of that "salvation" which is by works.
But I am used to reading these sorts of contradictions.
If the faith which comes through the gospel is a gift, then God’s gifts may be imparted through means, can they not? How then is it stated that this "kind" of faith is obtained by the efforts of men, as opposed to that other "kind" of seed faith which is furnished by grace? Should we not then give glory to God for our “gospel salvation”, as it is called, instead of saying that it is something that we must do for ourselves?
On the other hand, if it is not a gift, then God does not “freely give us all things” (Rom. 8:32), does he? Peter was wrong when he stated that the power of God “hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness” (2 Peter 1:3). We must say only those blessings which we receive apart from means are gifts from the Lord. For the rest, God must be robbed of His glory. I must instead give credit to the preacher or boast of my own free-will when I “saved myself”.
In answer to the question “What hast thou that thou didst not receive?”(1 Cor. 4:7), I must reply…
Why those things which come through the gospel of course!”
Thursday, August 15, 2013
How Far Removed!
In reading the oldest Hardshell periodicals of the 1830s I am stunned by how different today's Hardshells are in doctrine. The first Hardshells were very strict in judging all other groups as not truly Christian, or not truly born again. They were quick to affirm that the true born again child of God would not follow others in supporting mission boards and societies, or Sunday Schools, or theological schools, etc. They constantly referred to those who supported such as being part of the whore of Babylon, and of the AntiChrist. They thought they were wolves, and not sheep. True, they thought that some of the Lord's elect were among these groups, for they were often heard citing this verse - "come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues." (Rev. 18: 4) But, they did not believe that such chosen people would remain in Babylon once they were regenerated and converted. This was the teaching of the Old Baptists in England also in the 17th century. It showed that they believed in perseverance, and that conversion brought one out of false religion. But, the difference between the Old Baptists of the 17th century and that of the first Hardshells of the 19th century was that the older Baptists did not think that all Arminians or those in other denominations were in Babylon and lost, as did the first Hardshells. Both groups understood that a continuing in the doctrine of Christ was a proof of genuine conversion. (II John 9)
It was wrong, however, for the first Hardshells to so denounce all other Baptists and Christians in such a manner. Basically, they were saying that they were the only professing Christians who had been truly saved. But, though this was an error, it shows how unlike they are to today's Hardshells who think that millions of heathen who are worshipping other gods are born again! It is amazing to behold just how far removed today's Hardshells are from their forefathers! It also shows another similarity between the first generation of Hardshells and of the Campbellites.
On these similarities Brother Bob Ross wrote:
"On this point of doctrine, the Hardshells are much like their Campbellite "twin," while the Campbellites are also divided into many factions, they are generally united in their "Word alone" theory, just as the Hardshells are generally united in their "Spirit alone" theory.
While on the idea of "similarities" between Campbellism and Hardshellism, consider the following:
Both were "born" in the early 1800's, apostatizing from "Calvinism."
Both systems obtained their "followings" primarily from Presbyterians and unstable Baptists.
Both held to a non-Baptist position on the new birth, Campbellism teaching the "Word alone" theory and Hardshellism teaching the "Spirit alone" theory.
Both had significant events in 1827 and 1832:
1827: First Campbellite baptism by Walter Scott "in order to remission of sins."
1827: Kehukee Declaration in opposition to missionary methods.
1832: Union of Campbellites and Stoneites as one "movement."
1832: Black Rock Address in opposition to missionary methods. These are "watershed" events in the early development of both schisms.
Both were molded by magazines -- Campbellism by Campbell's Millennial Harbinger and Hardshellism by Beebe's Signs of the Times and Cayce's Primitive Baptist.
Both were adamantly opposed to the "mission methods" used to send the Gospel abroad.
Both attributed the most contemptible motives and purposes to those who were engaged in the missionary cause.
Both departed from the Baptist Confession of Faith in regard to the Gospel in the Effectual Calling of the elect to Christ.
Both, in the course of time, fragmentized over internal controversies and leaders (usually those who published magazines). "Patternism" produced "factions."
Both made a major issue over "instrumental music in worship."
Both became "exclusivists," claiming that they were the "only" church of Christ, they only held "scriptural" baptism, and they only practiced "scriptural" worship and church order.
Both adopted the "command, example, inference" hermeneutic.
Both developed a strong anti-premillennialist eschatology.
Both promoted the Pelagian philosophy that "command implies ability."
They both appeal to "logic" to set aside the plain statements of Scripture, denying that the power of the Holy Spirit accompanies the Gospel in the new birth." (see here)
To this we may add that both groups claimed to be the only ones truly saved and that both groups first called themselves "Reformers."
It was wrong, however, for the first Hardshells to so denounce all other Baptists and Christians in such a manner. Basically, they were saying that they were the only professing Christians who had been truly saved. But, though this was an error, it shows how unlike they are to today's Hardshells who think that millions of heathen who are worshipping other gods are born again! It is amazing to behold just how far removed today's Hardshells are from their forefathers! It also shows another similarity between the first generation of Hardshells and of the Campbellites.
On these similarities Brother Bob Ross wrote:
"On this point of doctrine, the Hardshells are much like their Campbellite "twin," while the Campbellites are also divided into many factions, they are generally united in their "Word alone" theory, just as the Hardshells are generally united in their "Spirit alone" theory.
While on the idea of "similarities" between Campbellism and Hardshellism, consider the following:
Both were "born" in the early 1800's, apostatizing from "Calvinism."
Both systems obtained their "followings" primarily from Presbyterians and unstable Baptists.
Both held to a non-Baptist position on the new birth, Campbellism teaching the "Word alone" theory and Hardshellism teaching the "Spirit alone" theory.
Both had significant events in 1827 and 1832:
1827: First Campbellite baptism by Walter Scott "in order to remission of sins."
1827: Kehukee Declaration in opposition to missionary methods.
1832: Union of Campbellites and Stoneites as one "movement."
1832: Black Rock Address in opposition to missionary methods. These are "watershed" events in the early development of both schisms.
Both were molded by magazines -- Campbellism by Campbell's Millennial Harbinger and Hardshellism by Beebe's Signs of the Times and Cayce's Primitive Baptist.
Both were adamantly opposed to the "mission methods" used to send the Gospel abroad.
Both attributed the most contemptible motives and purposes to those who were engaged in the missionary cause.
Both departed from the Baptist Confession of Faith in regard to the Gospel in the Effectual Calling of the elect to Christ.
Both, in the course of time, fragmentized over internal controversies and leaders (usually those who published magazines). "Patternism" produced "factions."
Both made a major issue over "instrumental music in worship."
Both became "exclusivists," claiming that they were the "only" church of Christ, they only held "scriptural" baptism, and they only practiced "scriptural" worship and church order.
Both adopted the "command, example, inference" hermeneutic.
Both developed a strong anti-premillennialist eschatology.
Both promoted the Pelagian philosophy that "command implies ability."
They both appeal to "logic" to set aside the plain statements of Scripture, denying that the power of the Holy Spirit accompanies the Gospel in the new birth." (see here)
To this we may add that both groups claimed to be the only ones truly saved and that both groups first called themselves "Reformers."
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
The Key Question
Predestination. Regeneration. Conversion. Justification. Sanctification. Perseverance. Faith. Repentance.
All of these doctrines get redefined when one adopts the conditional time salvation scheme. Predestination becomes limited, thus making free-will the first cause of those things not ordained of God. Regeneration becomes a changeless experience. Conversion becomes an optional Arminian transaction for the “elect within the elect”. Justification "by faith" isn't necessary, thus allowing for many unbelievers to be accounted righteous. Like conversion, sanctification becomes optional as well. Perseverance is denied and exchanged for preservation, when in fact both are taught in the Bible. And different kinds of faith and repentance are invented where one “kind” is necessary and the other is not.
There. That’s a pretty good summary of the hatchet job done to God’s Word by this teaching. While a correct understanding of just one of these points of doctrine is enough to begin to deliver someone from this heresy, I have always felt that a reminder of the basics is very helpful when considering God’s Word. Anytime we adopt a way of looking at the Bible through certain lenses but end up denying some basic fundamental teaching central to the Christian faith, we should know that we have erred at some point. I firmly believe that one of the key “baby” steps needed to be taken by those ingrained in this system is a return back to the very basic question that the overwhelming majority of Christendom unhesitantly answers in the affirmative, and would probably be shocked at the suggestion that someone feels otherwise. Towards the end of his sermon Re-thinking Conditional Time Salvation Elder Thomas Mann was quite wise in posing this question to his audience, hopefully stirring their minds to see that in adopting this scheme they were challenging a question which many Christians including myself would deem as “kindergarten” in bible study.
“Will all of God’s children believe in Jesus?”
Mann responded:
“And the answer in the Bible is unequivocally yes.”
Amen. One has to go to great lengths and many scriptural perversions to deny this clear teaching in the Bible. How anyone can read the Gospel of John, or the Roman and Galatian epistles, and deny that all of God’s elect will know and believe in Christ is astounding! The extreme version of conditional time salvation must maintain this however. It is a testimony of just how far certain ones have departed from the faith when this primary point of the Christian experience is being denied. There are of course many more implications in believing this doctrine, such as unorthodox views of some of the doctrines mentioned at the top, yet coming to understand that faith in Christ is guaranteed to the chosen of God would be a good first step in being delivered from a damnable heresy.
May God open the eyes of those who object, that they might see the truth.
Monday, August 12, 2013
Hardshells & Mission Opposition IV
Chapter 147
In an article titled "Finney's Revival Methods," William Farley wrote:
"Finney’s techniques were novel. He did not evangelize like his predecessors, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, and Asahel Nettleton. To secure conversions, he deliberately raised the emotional timbre of the meetings. He adopted and popularized the Methodist practice of asking converts to come to the altar or sit on an anxious seat to signify their decision to follow Christ. To wear people down so they would make a commitment, he lengthened his meetings. Sometimes his meetings lasted 4 hours or longer. These forms of manipulation did not escape his critics...Finney achieved significant success, but because of his new measures, a ground swell of resistance arose."
"Although Methodists, and some Baptists, had been practicing these techniques for sometime, Finney popularized them. They remain in use today. As Murray notes, “What happened there [Western New York under Finney] became a watershed in evangelical history and introduced the first major controversy on the meaning of revival between leaders who equally professed their belief in the work of the Holy Spirit.” (Charles Finney: The Controversial Evangelist by William P. Farley - see here)
There is somewhat of a contradiction in these words. First, Farley says that "Finney's techniques were novel" and then says certain groups "had been practicing these techniques for some time." The truth is that Finney, rather than introducing wholly new techniques, rather "popularized" them. But, he is correct about how the revival methods of Finney created a tumult among many, especially among those who were strongly Calvinistic. It is certainly true that Finney's Pelagianism determined the kind of evangelistic methods he used, just as Calvinism determines the kind Calvinists use. Doctrine always effects practice. Still, one must wonder which is worse, the extremism of Finney or the extremism of the Hardshell Black Rockers.
In July, 1827 the "New Lebanon Conference" was held in New Lebanon, New York by Presbyterian ministers to resolve disputes concerning the so-called New Measures for evangelism popularized primarily by Charles Finney. William Weeks was one of the participants. In "A letter on protracted meetings addressed to the church in Paris [N.Y.]" (see here) Weeks, a critic of Finney's revival methods, wrote (1832):
"Another bad effect which I think is greatly to be feared, in every place, is, that by a resort to these extraordinary measures, the ordinary means of grace will come to be undervalued and despised...While I think the ordinary means of grace to have been divinely appointed, I cannot, with a clear conscience, willingly contribute any influence of mine to bring them into disrepute."
Such a statement reminds us of the inner turmoil of mind and spirit that Calvinist John Leland often experienced in contemplating the way in which he ought to address and appeal to sinners. He, thankfully, did not go to either extreme. He rejected the methods of Finney and the Camp Meeting Methodists, one extreme, but he also rejected the "Gillite method," another extreme, and determined to preach with "a little Arminianism" mixed in.
Weeks wrote:
"The glorious justice of God, and his holy sovereignty, his right to do what he will with his own, and his purpose to form some into vessels of mercy and others into vessels of wrath, and the duty of the sinner to be reconciled to these things, I have not heard clearly exhibited at any of these meetings. Rarely, indeed, have I heard a single sentence, on such occasions, which would not be approved by the most thorough Arminian. On the contrary, I have heard several Arminian sentiments plainly stated, and strongly urged. That God does on the whole desire the salvation of every sinner, I take to be the fundamental error of both Arminians and Uniyersalists."
What this writer says I find objectionable. He seems to think, like some Calvinists, that the Gospel cannot be preached by Arminians, and that one cannot preach the Gospel unless one preaches on election and predestination. When Paul says "I declare unto the Gospel which I preached unto you," in I Cor. 15:1, he relates just what that Gospel entailed and says:
"For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures..." (vs. 3-4)
There is nothing in these words about God's sovereignty or about election and predestination. Certainly these doctrines are not opposed to the Gospel and may be declared in conjunction with preaching the Gospel, but the Gospel may be preached when nothing is said about them. Further, if Arminians do not preach the Gospel, then they don't believe the Gospel, and are therefore lost. That is an extreme view and one that is, thankfully, false.
Further, it is not wrong to tell others that God desires their salvation, or that of all men. This is what Paul said: "Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." (I Tim. 2: 4) Many Calvinists, such as Charles Spurgeon and John Piper, do not limit the "all men" to only the elect. What they teach is that God loves all men, but that he especially loves the elect, and that he desires all men to be saved, but especially desires the elect to be saved. God desires all to come to a knowledge of the truth, but especially desires that the elect come to a knowledge of the truth. Wrote Paul:
"For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe." (I Tim. 4: 10)
God desires and wills the salvation of all men in the same way that he desires that all men keep his commandments. The truth is, as many able Calvinistic theologians have shown, the Bible sometimes uses the word "will" and "desire," in reference to God, in two distinct senses, and various adjectives are used to make such a distinction. God's sovereign will is that will of purpose whereby God sees to it that what he wills shall infallibly come to pass, and is equivalent with his predestining things. On the other hand, his prescriptive will denotes what God has commanded men to do of their own wills. The former cannot be frustrated but the latter can.
Certainly men should be taught the basics of the Gospel in order to be called upon to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. How can they believe in his person if nothing is taught them about his person? Certainly men should be exhorted to believe in his death, burial, and resurrection, and in his atoning sacrifice for sin, but how shall they believe in such if they are not first taught concerning these things? Likewise, men should be commanded to repent, but they need to be taught what it is that God dislikes and condemns so that they know what it is they need to repent of.
Weeks wrote:
"Sinners are urged to rise, to take certain seats, to kneel, to go to certain places, and the like, with an earnestness which indicates that by doing so they are almost sure of being converted, and by refusing almost sure of being lost. And, on a late occasion, after a preacher had been some time urging the impenitent to resort to the anxious room to be conversed with, he closed by saying, as I took it down at the time, "Go, and the Holy Spirit will seal you unto the day of redemption. Now, all this appears entirely consistent with Arminian sentiments, and with the idea that conversion is the work of man; but does not appear to me to be at all according to what the Bible teaches of the character of unregenerate doings, and of the true state of the sinner. It appears to me to be extremely well adapted "to flatter the sinner into a false hope, and to strengthen and encourage that hope when once imbibed, and thus lead to a whole life of false religion. And when, in addition to these measures, the general strain of what is said to sinners is adapted to work upon their selfish feelings and animal passions, as most of what I have heard has been, and some of it extremely well adapted to work up those feelings to a high pitch, it would be strange if some affections were not excited which they might readily mistake for true religion."
These words of condemnation are similar to those of the Black Rock brethren and of other Arminian hating Calvinists. No one denies that there is a danger in certain kinds of altar calls, and that they sometimes produce false conversions and beget false hopes. But, the abuse of a thing does not make the thing itself wrong. I have already shown how the old Kehukee preachers, in the 1700s, used to invite sinners under conviction of sin to come forward to be prayed for. Elder Wilson Thompson did the same thing. Charles Spurgeon invited sinners seeking salvation to an "inquiry room," a place where they were counseled and instructed on the plan of salvation. As far as the harm of producing shallow ground hearers, or false conversions, I will have more to say shortly.
Weeks wrote:
"How many of them are true converts, is not necessary for me to know. 1 would not limit the Holy One of Israel. I do not know how much truth must be before the mind, in order to render it consistent for God to change the sinner's heart. But, so much appears to me very plain: Such measures, and such instruction as I have described, are extremely well adapted to produce a false hope, and to promote selfish religion; and for that reason, I cannot in conscience adopt them, or countenance them. I should expect to be chargeable with the blood of perishing sinners, if I aid."
The concerns that Weeks speaks of should be a concern to all evangelists. But, one should be careful not to go to an opposite extreme. But, more on this shortly.
Weeks continued:
"I do not object to the sinner's being told that it is his duly to repent now, without waiting for further reflection, or reading, or self-examination. It has been my uniform practice, as you know, to tell him this. Yet, while I tell him he ought to repent now of all the sin he is conscious of, and love all the truth he knows, I feel bound to tell him that he ought also to look into his own heart, and compare it with the divine requirements; that he ought to read his Bible, and look at truth and duty; that he ought especially to look at the divine character, in all its parts; and by all these means endeavor to obtain a clearer view of his sins, in their number, and magnitude, and aggravation, and repent of all, and a clearer view of God, in his whole character, and love it all."
I think this is a valid point and one which every evangelist should exercise the utmost care about. At least Weeks did not go to the extreme that the Hardshells did in opposing Finney's methods, for he continued to tell sinners to repent. Jesus dealt with what has been called hasty or precipitate disciples (learners).
"And it came to pass, that, as they went in the way, a certain man said unto him, Lord, I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest. And Jesus said unto him, Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head." (Luke 9 57, 58)
Jesus perceived that the prospective disciple who hastily said to him - "I will follow you anywhere," was lacking sufficient time to consider all that was involved in such a momentous decision. He was being rash and precipitate.
This "would be disciple" of Jesus was "quick to jump at the chance" to follow Jesus and join his society, and he is often called the "hasty" or "rash" disciple, in contrast to others who were rather "procrastinating" disciples, those who were finding reasons to postpone following Christ.
The hasty disciple is a careless individual. Many become professing Christians for the wrong reasons, entering the visible church from a carnal and ambitious spirit, being naturally venturous, audacious, bold, brash, and breakneck.
Some do become Christians out of a devil-may-care attitude, being foolhardy and doing things headlong, being headstrong, immature and impetuous, habitually acting impulsively, as a madcap, being precipitate, and reckless, and thoughtless.
Such hasty and impetuous disciples make ill-advised and ill-considered decisions. Is it an ill advised decision to follow Jesus? No, if you are informed as to what it means to follow him, and knowing this, still desire to do so; Yes, if you are being hasty of spirit, rash, and therefore not properly understanding "what you are getting yourself into."
This is why Jesus said this to such rash disciples - "For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?"
Certainly this warning can be given when giving altar calls and certainly do not prevent the use of altar calls altogether. They also do not prevent evangelists from giving a sense of urgency in calling upon sinners to believe and repent. The Bible is full of addresses to the lost where they are urged not to delay in their turning to God in faith and repentance.
Weeks continued:
"On the whole, so far as my observation has extended, there has been, and is, a strong tendency to Arminianism, and increased opposition to the doctrines of grace. The fundamental principles of Arminianism are strongly urged, and dwelt upon, and embraced, and the whole system seems to be fast coming in. Attachment to the Calvinistic doctrines, those doctrines which used to be considered essential to revivals, is now made a ground of reproach; and a disposition to insist upon them, is considered not only injudicious, but wrong."
If Calvinists think that too much Arminianism is promoted in many of the revivals of men like Finney, then they ought to show a better way. Did Spurgeon not do this? He was not opposed to protracted and revival meetings. Just because some abuse them does not mean they are themselves wrong. The Black Rockers would have been better to have practiced properly conducted revival meetings and asked others to follow their example. I agree that sinners ought to be told to look to Christ for what they need. Sinners who are not under conviction should be instructed to cry out to God to convict them. Sinners who are struggling to believe should be told to ask the Lord for faith. Sinners struggling with turning away from their sins should be told to call out to the Lord to deliver them. I agree that many Arminians fail to point the struggling sinner to Christ, giving the sinner the impression that he already has the power and will he needs to believe and repent.
Weeks continued:
"The grand difficulty in the way of the sinner's conversion has been represented to be the love of worldly gratifications; and sinners have been exhorted to part with these for the joys of heaven. And, to submit to this, has been the self denial to which sinners have been urged. Instead of being called upon to submit to the justice of God, they have been called upon to submit to be saved, as if every sinner did not already wish to be saved." (William R. Weeks)
All this may be true, but such does not justify doing completely away with revival, evangelistic, and protracted meetings, as the Black Rockers did.
Fear Of False Conversions
What are the fears of the Hyper Calvinists in regard to the kinds of evangelistic and revival meetings held by the camp meetings of the Methodists or those of Finney? Are they afraid that one of the non-elect might be saved? Are they afraid that there will be false converts? However, doesn't even sound and biblical preaching produce such? Does the preaching of the Hyper Calvinists ever produce false conversions? Certainly the teaching of the parable of the sower and the seed falling on four kinds of soil shows that even genuine Gospel preaching will produce shallow and thorny ground Christians. Did not the preaching of Jesus and the Apostles produce such professors? Did it not produce converts like Simon Magus? Now, if it be a question as to which style of evangelistic preaching and revival meetings will produce less false conversions, let us be concerned but not overly concerned or go to extremes one way of the other.
A Christian has to be out of his right mind to object to churches holding revival meetings of several days span. Not only are most churches annual revival meetings designed for evangelistic purposes, but in order to revive the existing church. Further, it is not presumption on the part of the church to hold them. Surely the church should be praying in advance that the Lord would be pleased with their efforts and not to think that revival will be automatic by simply holding a revival meeting. Surely they should be looking to the Lord to bless their seeking him in revival.
Revivals are not, in themselves, a usurping of the sovereignty of the Lord, especially if done in the manner described above. Beebe judged that such meetings were intended to "induce" the Lord to do what he did not want to do. But, this is a mischaracterization. Still, Jesus taught us to pray with a purpose to move God to do what he would not have done had there been no prayer. Jesus said:
"And he spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray, and not to faint; Saying, There was in a city a judge, which feared not God, neither regarded man: And there was a widow in that city; and she came unto him, saying, Avenge me of mine adversary. And he would not for a while: but afterward he said within himself, Though I fear not God, nor regard man; Yet because this widow troubleth me, I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me. And the Lord said, Hear what the unjust judge saith. And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them?" (Luke 18: 1-7)
Would the unjust judge have granted the widow's request had she not persisted in her petitioning of the judge? Was she not trying to "induce" him to grant her request? Jesus says that we should persist in prayer for the same reason, in order to move the Lord to do for us what he would not have done without our persisting in prayer.
It is no wonder that the Hardshells have been called "antinomians." It is not because they are opposed to the rule of law in the life of Christians, but because they deny that Christians have responsibilities and that God uses them. They have, for this reason been compared to the servant with one talent and who buried it in the ground. What reason did that servant give to the Lord for his doing so?
"I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed: And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine." (Matt. 25: 24-25)
This servant excused himself from his duties because he knew that his Lord was sovereign and did not need him, his Lord being able to reap even where there had been no sowing. This is the same reasoning that the Antinomian Hyper Calvinist Hardshells offer for their failing to fulfill the Great Commission, and for taking the Gospel to the heathen.
In an article titled "Finney's Revival Methods," William Farley wrote:
"Finney’s techniques were novel. He did not evangelize like his predecessors, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, and Asahel Nettleton. To secure conversions, he deliberately raised the emotional timbre of the meetings. He adopted and popularized the Methodist practice of asking converts to come to the altar or sit on an anxious seat to signify their decision to follow Christ. To wear people down so they would make a commitment, he lengthened his meetings. Sometimes his meetings lasted 4 hours or longer. These forms of manipulation did not escape his critics...Finney achieved significant success, but because of his new measures, a ground swell of resistance arose."
"Although Methodists, and some Baptists, had been practicing these techniques for sometime, Finney popularized them. They remain in use today. As Murray notes, “What happened there [Western New York under Finney] became a watershed in evangelical history and introduced the first major controversy on the meaning of revival between leaders who equally professed their belief in the work of the Holy Spirit.” (Charles Finney: The Controversial Evangelist by William P. Farley - see here)
There is somewhat of a contradiction in these words. First, Farley says that "Finney's techniques were novel" and then says certain groups "had been practicing these techniques for some time." The truth is that Finney, rather than introducing wholly new techniques, rather "popularized" them. But, he is correct about how the revival methods of Finney created a tumult among many, especially among those who were strongly Calvinistic. It is certainly true that Finney's Pelagianism determined the kind of evangelistic methods he used, just as Calvinism determines the kind Calvinists use. Doctrine always effects practice. Still, one must wonder which is worse, the extremism of Finney or the extremism of the Hardshell Black Rockers.
In July, 1827 the "New Lebanon Conference" was held in New Lebanon, New York by Presbyterian ministers to resolve disputes concerning the so-called New Measures for evangelism popularized primarily by Charles Finney. William Weeks was one of the participants. In "A letter on protracted meetings addressed to the church in Paris [N.Y.]" (see here) Weeks, a critic of Finney's revival methods, wrote (1832):
"Another bad effect which I think is greatly to be feared, in every place, is, that by a resort to these extraordinary measures, the ordinary means of grace will come to be undervalued and despised...While I think the ordinary means of grace to have been divinely appointed, I cannot, with a clear conscience, willingly contribute any influence of mine to bring them into disrepute."
Such a statement reminds us of the inner turmoil of mind and spirit that Calvinist John Leland often experienced in contemplating the way in which he ought to address and appeal to sinners. He, thankfully, did not go to either extreme. He rejected the methods of Finney and the Camp Meeting Methodists, one extreme, but he also rejected the "Gillite method," another extreme, and determined to preach with "a little Arminianism" mixed in.
Weeks wrote:
"The glorious justice of God, and his holy sovereignty, his right to do what he will with his own, and his purpose to form some into vessels of mercy and others into vessels of wrath, and the duty of the sinner to be reconciled to these things, I have not heard clearly exhibited at any of these meetings. Rarely, indeed, have I heard a single sentence, on such occasions, which would not be approved by the most thorough Arminian. On the contrary, I have heard several Arminian sentiments plainly stated, and strongly urged. That God does on the whole desire the salvation of every sinner, I take to be the fundamental error of both Arminians and Uniyersalists."
What this writer says I find objectionable. He seems to think, like some Calvinists, that the Gospel cannot be preached by Arminians, and that one cannot preach the Gospel unless one preaches on election and predestination. When Paul says "I declare unto the Gospel which I preached unto you," in I Cor. 15:1, he relates just what that Gospel entailed and says:
"For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures..." (vs. 3-4)
There is nothing in these words about God's sovereignty or about election and predestination. Certainly these doctrines are not opposed to the Gospel and may be declared in conjunction with preaching the Gospel, but the Gospel may be preached when nothing is said about them. Further, if Arminians do not preach the Gospel, then they don't believe the Gospel, and are therefore lost. That is an extreme view and one that is, thankfully, false.
Further, it is not wrong to tell others that God desires their salvation, or that of all men. This is what Paul said: "Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." (I Tim. 2: 4) Many Calvinists, such as Charles Spurgeon and John Piper, do not limit the "all men" to only the elect. What they teach is that God loves all men, but that he especially loves the elect, and that he desires all men to be saved, but especially desires the elect to be saved. God desires all to come to a knowledge of the truth, but especially desires that the elect come to a knowledge of the truth. Wrote Paul:
"For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe." (I Tim. 4: 10)
God desires and wills the salvation of all men in the same way that he desires that all men keep his commandments. The truth is, as many able Calvinistic theologians have shown, the Bible sometimes uses the word "will" and "desire," in reference to God, in two distinct senses, and various adjectives are used to make such a distinction. God's sovereign will is that will of purpose whereby God sees to it that what he wills shall infallibly come to pass, and is equivalent with his predestining things. On the other hand, his prescriptive will denotes what God has commanded men to do of their own wills. The former cannot be frustrated but the latter can.
Certainly men should be taught the basics of the Gospel in order to be called upon to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. How can they believe in his person if nothing is taught them about his person? Certainly men should be exhorted to believe in his death, burial, and resurrection, and in his atoning sacrifice for sin, but how shall they believe in such if they are not first taught concerning these things? Likewise, men should be commanded to repent, but they need to be taught what it is that God dislikes and condemns so that they know what it is they need to repent of.
Weeks wrote:
"Sinners are urged to rise, to take certain seats, to kneel, to go to certain places, and the like, with an earnestness which indicates that by doing so they are almost sure of being converted, and by refusing almost sure of being lost. And, on a late occasion, after a preacher had been some time urging the impenitent to resort to the anxious room to be conversed with, he closed by saying, as I took it down at the time, "Go, and the Holy Spirit will seal you unto the day of redemption. Now, all this appears entirely consistent with Arminian sentiments, and with the idea that conversion is the work of man; but does not appear to me to be at all according to what the Bible teaches of the character of unregenerate doings, and of the true state of the sinner. It appears to me to be extremely well adapted "to flatter the sinner into a false hope, and to strengthen and encourage that hope when once imbibed, and thus lead to a whole life of false religion. And when, in addition to these measures, the general strain of what is said to sinners is adapted to work upon their selfish feelings and animal passions, as most of what I have heard has been, and some of it extremely well adapted to work up those feelings to a high pitch, it would be strange if some affections were not excited which they might readily mistake for true religion."
These words of condemnation are similar to those of the Black Rock brethren and of other Arminian hating Calvinists. No one denies that there is a danger in certain kinds of altar calls, and that they sometimes produce false conversions and beget false hopes. But, the abuse of a thing does not make the thing itself wrong. I have already shown how the old Kehukee preachers, in the 1700s, used to invite sinners under conviction of sin to come forward to be prayed for. Elder Wilson Thompson did the same thing. Charles Spurgeon invited sinners seeking salvation to an "inquiry room," a place where they were counseled and instructed on the plan of salvation. As far as the harm of producing shallow ground hearers, or false conversions, I will have more to say shortly.
Weeks wrote:
"How many of them are true converts, is not necessary for me to know. 1 would not limit the Holy One of Israel. I do not know how much truth must be before the mind, in order to render it consistent for God to change the sinner's heart. But, so much appears to me very plain: Such measures, and such instruction as I have described, are extremely well adapted to produce a false hope, and to promote selfish religion; and for that reason, I cannot in conscience adopt them, or countenance them. I should expect to be chargeable with the blood of perishing sinners, if I aid."
The concerns that Weeks speaks of should be a concern to all evangelists. But, one should be careful not to go to an opposite extreme. But, more on this shortly.
Weeks continued:
"I do not object to the sinner's being told that it is his duly to repent now, without waiting for further reflection, or reading, or self-examination. It has been my uniform practice, as you know, to tell him this. Yet, while I tell him he ought to repent now of all the sin he is conscious of, and love all the truth he knows, I feel bound to tell him that he ought also to look into his own heart, and compare it with the divine requirements; that he ought to read his Bible, and look at truth and duty; that he ought especially to look at the divine character, in all its parts; and by all these means endeavor to obtain a clearer view of his sins, in their number, and magnitude, and aggravation, and repent of all, and a clearer view of God, in his whole character, and love it all."
I think this is a valid point and one which every evangelist should exercise the utmost care about. At least Weeks did not go to the extreme that the Hardshells did in opposing Finney's methods, for he continued to tell sinners to repent. Jesus dealt with what has been called hasty or precipitate disciples (learners).
"And it came to pass, that, as they went in the way, a certain man said unto him, Lord, I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest. And Jesus said unto him, Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head." (Luke 9 57, 58)
Jesus perceived that the prospective disciple who hastily said to him - "I will follow you anywhere," was lacking sufficient time to consider all that was involved in such a momentous decision. He was being rash and precipitate.
This "would be disciple" of Jesus was "quick to jump at the chance" to follow Jesus and join his society, and he is often called the "hasty" or "rash" disciple, in contrast to others who were rather "procrastinating" disciples, those who were finding reasons to postpone following Christ.
The hasty disciple is a careless individual. Many become professing Christians for the wrong reasons, entering the visible church from a carnal and ambitious spirit, being naturally venturous, audacious, bold, brash, and breakneck.
Some do become Christians out of a devil-may-care attitude, being foolhardy and doing things headlong, being headstrong, immature and impetuous, habitually acting impulsively, as a madcap, being precipitate, and reckless, and thoughtless.
Such hasty and impetuous disciples make ill-advised and ill-considered decisions. Is it an ill advised decision to follow Jesus? No, if you are informed as to what it means to follow him, and knowing this, still desire to do so; Yes, if you are being hasty of spirit, rash, and therefore not properly understanding "what you are getting yourself into."
This is why Jesus said this to such rash disciples - "For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?"
Certainly this warning can be given when giving altar calls and certainly do not prevent the use of altar calls altogether. They also do not prevent evangelists from giving a sense of urgency in calling upon sinners to believe and repent. The Bible is full of addresses to the lost where they are urged not to delay in their turning to God in faith and repentance.
Weeks continued:
"On the whole, so far as my observation has extended, there has been, and is, a strong tendency to Arminianism, and increased opposition to the doctrines of grace. The fundamental principles of Arminianism are strongly urged, and dwelt upon, and embraced, and the whole system seems to be fast coming in. Attachment to the Calvinistic doctrines, those doctrines which used to be considered essential to revivals, is now made a ground of reproach; and a disposition to insist upon them, is considered not only injudicious, but wrong."
If Calvinists think that too much Arminianism is promoted in many of the revivals of men like Finney, then they ought to show a better way. Did Spurgeon not do this? He was not opposed to protracted and revival meetings. Just because some abuse them does not mean they are themselves wrong. The Black Rockers would have been better to have practiced properly conducted revival meetings and asked others to follow their example. I agree that sinners ought to be told to look to Christ for what they need. Sinners who are not under conviction should be instructed to cry out to God to convict them. Sinners who are struggling to believe should be told to ask the Lord for faith. Sinners struggling with turning away from their sins should be told to call out to the Lord to deliver them. I agree that many Arminians fail to point the struggling sinner to Christ, giving the sinner the impression that he already has the power and will he needs to believe and repent.
Weeks continued:
"The grand difficulty in the way of the sinner's conversion has been represented to be the love of worldly gratifications; and sinners have been exhorted to part with these for the joys of heaven. And, to submit to this, has been the self denial to which sinners have been urged. Instead of being called upon to submit to the justice of God, they have been called upon to submit to be saved, as if every sinner did not already wish to be saved." (William R. Weeks)
All this may be true, but such does not justify doing completely away with revival, evangelistic, and protracted meetings, as the Black Rockers did.
Fear Of False Conversions
What are the fears of the Hyper Calvinists in regard to the kinds of evangelistic and revival meetings held by the camp meetings of the Methodists or those of Finney? Are they afraid that one of the non-elect might be saved? Are they afraid that there will be false converts? However, doesn't even sound and biblical preaching produce such? Does the preaching of the Hyper Calvinists ever produce false conversions? Certainly the teaching of the parable of the sower and the seed falling on four kinds of soil shows that even genuine Gospel preaching will produce shallow and thorny ground Christians. Did not the preaching of Jesus and the Apostles produce such professors? Did it not produce converts like Simon Magus? Now, if it be a question as to which style of evangelistic preaching and revival meetings will produce less false conversions, let us be concerned but not overly concerned or go to extremes one way of the other.
A Christian has to be out of his right mind to object to churches holding revival meetings of several days span. Not only are most churches annual revival meetings designed for evangelistic purposes, but in order to revive the existing church. Further, it is not presumption on the part of the church to hold them. Surely the church should be praying in advance that the Lord would be pleased with their efforts and not to think that revival will be automatic by simply holding a revival meeting. Surely they should be looking to the Lord to bless their seeking him in revival.
Revivals are not, in themselves, a usurping of the sovereignty of the Lord, especially if done in the manner described above. Beebe judged that such meetings were intended to "induce" the Lord to do what he did not want to do. But, this is a mischaracterization. Still, Jesus taught us to pray with a purpose to move God to do what he would not have done had there been no prayer. Jesus said:
"And he spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray, and not to faint; Saying, There was in a city a judge, which feared not God, neither regarded man: And there was a widow in that city; and she came unto him, saying, Avenge me of mine adversary. And he would not for a while: but afterward he said within himself, Though I fear not God, nor regard man; Yet because this widow troubleth me, I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me. And the Lord said, Hear what the unjust judge saith. And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them?" (Luke 18: 1-7)
Would the unjust judge have granted the widow's request had she not persisted in her petitioning of the judge? Was she not trying to "induce" him to grant her request? Jesus says that we should persist in prayer for the same reason, in order to move the Lord to do for us what he would not have done without our persisting in prayer.
It is no wonder that the Hardshells have been called "antinomians." It is not because they are opposed to the rule of law in the life of Christians, but because they deny that Christians have responsibilities and that God uses them. They have, for this reason been compared to the servant with one talent and who buried it in the ground. What reason did that servant give to the Lord for his doing so?
"I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed: And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine." (Matt. 25: 24-25)
This servant excused himself from his duties because he knew that his Lord was sovereign and did not need him, his Lord being able to reap even where there had been no sowing. This is the same reasoning that the Antinomian Hyper Calvinist Hardshells offer for their failing to fulfill the Great Commission, and for taking the Gospel to the heathen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)