Hardshell leader Elder J. H. Purifoy, in the latter end of the 19th century, wrote:
"I would like to see the expression 'final perseverance of the saints,' completely stricken out of our articles of faith, and instead say we believe in the EVERLASTING PRESERVATION of the saints..." (as cited in chapter 92 of my series "Hardshells & Perseverance")
Purifoy's testimony demonstrates that the Hardshells of the late 19th century were beginning to deny what their forefathers taught regarding the perseverance of the saints. He testifies that this was what their articles of faith had always taught and he wanted to change them. Yet, in spite of this, the Hardshells who wanted to change this article were a minority for the Hardshells who assembled in Fulton, Kentucky, in the year 1900, still held on to their belief in the perseverance of the saints. They endorsed the 1689 confession and left the section on perseverance as it reads, without any "clarification." That section says these things:
"Those whom God hath accepted in the beloved, effectually called and sanctified by his Spirit, and given the precious faith of his elect unto, can neither totally nor finally fall from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved, seeing the gifts and callings of God are without repentance, whence he still begets and nourisheth in them faith, repentance, love, joy, hope, and all the graces of the Spirit unto immortality; and though many storms and floods arise and beat against them, yet they shall never be able to take them off that foundation and rock which by faith they are fastened upon..."
"This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father, upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ and union with him, the oath of God, the abiding of his Spirit, and the seed of God within them, and the nature of the covenant of grace; from all which ariseth also the certainty and infallibility thereof."
"And though they may, through the temptation of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins, and for a time continue therein, whereby they incur God's displeasure and grieve his Holy Spirit, come to have their graces and comforts impaired, have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded, hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves, yet shall they renew their repentance and be preserved through faith in Christ Jesus to the end."
These are the historic and traditional articles of faith of the Hardshell denomination and many of them, like Purifoy, changed those articles of faith to deny perseverance. Who was right? The Hardshell forefathers or today's Hardshells? Further, how can Hardshells today claim to believe as did their forefathers? That they have articles of faith that have remained unchanged from the primitive Baptists of prior centuries? How can they say that they have not changed in their doctrinal views throughout their history as a denomination?
In the early 1890s there was a division in the Mt. Carmel Regular Old School Baptist church in Luray, Virginia over the question regarding means and perseverance. There was a trial held in 1909 to determine which views were the historic views of the Old Baptists. Here is a part of the testimony given by Elder E.H. Burnam regarding the changes being proposed on the subject of perseverance.
Q. Now state if there was any further departure from the faith as laid down in the deed of 1849, especially with reference to the words “final perseverance of the saints to glory, etc.?”
A. This book---this same paper---Zion’s Advocate and Herald of the Truth, of the same date, June, 1891, contains this as one of its articles, on the second page of the cover, and numbered seven, seventh article: “The final preservation and eternal happiness of all the elect of God by grace.” Now the faith of the Old School Baptists or Regular Baptists, as they used to be called and are still called by us, was salvation by grace through faith, and the perseverance of the saints in grace to glory. The perseverance! The word perseverance instead of preservation. A clear distinction must be drawn between the two words. Preservation does not necessarily include faith, but perseverance could not exist without it. None persevere unto eternal life except through a God-given faith. Therefore, we hold that there has been a clear departure from the original faith on these two points that I have named. We hold to the ancient faith, just as it was, and expect to do so while life lasts, as the truth of God.
So, we can conclude that the Hardshells have forsaken the Old Baptist position regarding perseverance.
In further testimony, let me now cite from Elder John M. Watson on this matter. In his book "The Old Baptist Test," he wrote:
"...he perseveres because God keeps him by his power through faith unto salvation..." (page 480) And, he says "That he perseveres through the power of God." (page 482)
Elder C. B. Hassell wrote:
"The patience and the final perseverance of the saints, notwithstanding temporary distrust under Satan’s persecutions, which entailed loss of family, friends, possessions and bodily health, are illustrated in Job’s history." (chapter II, page 63, of Hassell's history)
Elder J. H. Oliphant, the moderator of the Fulton Convention, wrote a book called "The Perseverance of the Saints," and wrote this:
"God’s word is a stubborn truth that cannot be gainsaid. Where we have a plain thus saith the Lord, reason and philosophy must give way. Mark, xiii: 22, "For false Christs and false prophets shall arise and shall show signs and wonders to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect." Doubtless all believers are the elect. And this text affirms it to be impossible to deceive the elect: Job, xvii: 9, "The righteous also shall hold on his way, and he that hath clean hands shall be stronger and stronger." (Chapter 6)
These words are clear. Oliphant says that the elect can't be deceived (about their faith in Christ as Savior and Lord) and that they shall hold on their way.
Further, if one reads the Hardshell periodicals of the 1830s he will see that the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints was taught in all of them and that this was put forward as being the historic teaching of the Old Baptists.
In fact, those Hardshells today who deny perseverance should quit singing the song "How Firm A Foundation," for line three says:
Fear not, I am with thee; oh, be not dismayed,
For I am thy God and will still give thee aid.
I'll strengthen thee, help thee, and cause thee to stand,
Upheld by my righteous, upheld by my righteous,
Upheld by my righteous, omnipotent hand.
Notice how the song writer says that God will "cause thee to stand." This is what the Scriptures also say. God says "I will strengthen thee; yea, I will help thee; yea, I will uphold thee with the right hand of my righteousness." (Isa. 41: 10) "Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand." (Rom. 14: 4) In these verses the words "uphold" and "holden up" mean "made to stand." In fact, in the New KJV "made to stand" is the translation of Romans 14: 4. What is this but the promise that God will insure that his people stand firm on the rock of Christ?
Those Hardshells today who say that they believe in the preservation of saints, but not in the perseverance of saints, are
1) Teaching contrary to the historic doctrine of the Old Baptists, even of their own founding fathers, as expressed in their accepted confessions of faith and in the writings of their leaders.
2) Denying the plain declarations of Scripture that affirm both preservation and perseverance.
3) Failing to see how these terms represent ideas that compliment each other rather than being opposed to each other.
If one looks at the passages of Scripture that are most often used to teach the certain preservation of all those who have been truly saved and converted, he will see how that preservation is more than simply preserving a physical (non moral) life, but a preservation of that which is created in the soul's rebirth, which is more than bare life, for it includes that love and trust in God and Christ that is born in the new birth. It is a preservation of the union brought about through a faith adherence to God and his Son Jesus.
Let us look at some of the Scripture passages that teach the preservation of the saints and see how they involve perseverance.
"Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time." (I Peter 1: 5)
Notice that God's preservation is through the means of faith, through belief of the truth, through trust in God and his promises.
Dr. Gill, in commenting upon this verse said:
"they are kept...in the fear of God, and faith of Christ, and love to both; and in the path of truth, from whence they can never finally and totally fall: for though they are not kept from the being of sin, and the workings of it, and slips and falls into it, yet from being destroyed by it; and though not from Satan, and his temptations, yet from being overcome by them; and though not entirely from unbelief, doubts, and fears, yet from final unbelief; for Christ prays for them, that their faith fail not; and from a final and total falling away from grace into sin: and they are kept thus..."
In commenting upon how this preservation is "through faith," he wrote:
"...through faith in the power and faithfulness of God; through faith looking to Christ, leaning on him, and living upon him; by faith getting the victory over the world, and every other enemy, and being more than conquerors, through Christ."
Paul wrote:
"And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus." (Phi. 4: 7)
Notice how this preservation involves the keeping of both the heart and mind, or keeping of the understanding and faith. Further, as we shall see, this keeping by God is visible in the saints keeping themselves.
"We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not." (I John 5: 18)
God keeps the believer but the believer also keeps himself.
"Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life...Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy..." (Jude 1: 21, 24)
Notice how Jude mentions God's keeping of the believer and yet he admonishes the believer to keep himself. Jude did not think that one excluded the other as do our modern Hardshells.
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death." (John 8: 51)
Notice how keeping the words of Christ are stated as a condition for obtaining eternal life. Does this not plainly teach against those Hardshells who say that there are not admonitions to persevere for the purpose of being finally saved?
"He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him...Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings..." (John 14: 21-24)
"He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." (I John 2: 4)
Here Jesus again affirms that those who do not keep the words of Christ are liars, do not have the truth (reality) of salvation in them. He also says that if one keeps or perseveres in his allegiance to Christ and his words, then that person will be loved by God, will be finally saved. If a man loves me, if a man has been born again, he will keep the words of the Lord. Of course he does not mean perfectly, but he does mean he will do so generally and characteristically. The Hardshells want us to believe that there are many saved in Heaven who have not preserved the words of Christ, did not persevere. Yet, they are clearly against the Scripture in teaching this.
Monday, November 4, 2013
Sunday, November 3, 2013
Abide In Him
"And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming." (I John 2: 28)
In this verse there is an exhortation, and the tense of the word "abide" carries the meaning of “keep on abiding in him.” The Hardshells argue that there are no commands or exhortations in Scripture for believers to persevere in order to be finally saved. But, this verse overthrows that reasoning.
The Greek word for "abide" is "menÅ" and means, according to Strong, to remain or not depart. It includes the idea of enduring or persevering.
What is the reason given for continuing to abide in Christ? It is "that" ("hina" in Greek which denotes purpose) we "not be ashamed before him at his coming," or "when he shall appear." Now, there is no way that any Hardshell can make this into a "time salvation." The word "ashamed" carries with it the idea of being dishonored and disgraced.
Thus, the exhortation of the Apostle is that believers should persevere and remain in Christ in order that they may be saved in the day of the Lord. Now, let our Hardshell brother at theearstohear blog show how this verse does not overthrow his reasoning.
In this verse there is an exhortation, and the tense of the word "abide" carries the meaning of “keep on abiding in him.” The Hardshells argue that there are no commands or exhortations in Scripture for believers to persevere in order to be finally saved. But, this verse overthrows that reasoning.
The Greek word for "abide" is "menÅ" and means, according to Strong, to remain or not depart. It includes the idea of enduring or persevering.
What is the reason given for continuing to abide in Christ? It is "that" ("hina" in Greek which denotes purpose) we "not be ashamed before him at his coming," or "when he shall appear." Now, there is no way that any Hardshell can make this into a "time salvation." The word "ashamed" carries with it the idea of being dishonored and disgraced.
Thus, the exhortation of the Apostle is that believers should persevere and remain in Christ in order that they may be saved in the day of the Lord. Now, let our Hardshell brother at theearstohear blog show how this verse does not overthrow his reasoning.
Preservation but not Perseverance?
The Hardshell who writes at theearstohear blog has written another denial of the Bible doctrine of Perseverance (see here). Both Elder Fralick and I have both recently interacted with this Hardshell on this issue and written in rebuttal to what he has written. This Hardshell has written another article in an attempt to uphold his idea that "Primitive Baptists Rightly Divide Preservation and Perseverance."
Before I examine this article, I want to give the comment I left him. I commented, saying:
Dear Brother:
"Can you give a citation from any of your Baptist forefathers, prior to the mid 19th century, who denied perseverance as you do? Can you cite one of them who taught that perseverance was only for a time salvation? If you cannot, and yet you believe that believing as you do is required for a church to be a legitimate church, how can you claim to be a primitive Baptist?"
In response, this Hardshell wrote me a lengthy reply, similar to the reply that he recently gave to Brother Fralick. I need not cite the entire comment, but he first replied by writing:
"My belief regarding perseverance comes directly from my understanding of scripture, not from citations of “Baptist forefathers prior to the mid 19th century.” I make my arguments from a systematic approach to the bible, not from Baptist history. Were I to do so, it would prove nothing with respect to the validity of my theological position."
The first thing to notice is how this brother basically admits that his view is novel among Particular or Calvinistic or Sovereign Grace Baptists. He knows he can find no one among his Baptist forefathers who denied that preservation involved perseverance. So, what does he do? He skips over centuries and claims that he is a "Primitive" Baptist because Paul and the new testament writers were Primitive Baptists and that they did not teach the doctrine of perseverance. So, what is he saying? He is saying that the truth about preservation was lost for centuries until it was restored by him and his modern Hardshells. He is saying that his Baptist forefathers were in error on this point, were not "rightly dividing the word of truth," and were basing salvation on something other than the atonement because they taught perseverance. That is indeed an outlandish claim. It reminds me of Alexander Campbell who also thought that the church had lost important truth until he came along to restore it. But, Campbell did not take the name of "Primitive Baptist" because he realized that there were not any groups in the days of the apostles or afterward (till the 17th century) who called themselves Baptists. He and his followers therefore wanted only to be called "Christian" and "church of Christ." This ought to have been what this Hardshell ought to do also, seeing he cannot find any Baptists, besides the Arminian or General Baptists, who denied perseverance. His forefathers who first adopted the name "Primitive Baptist" did so because they believed that they were holding to the beliefs of their Baptist forefathers who endorsed the London and Philadelphia Confessions of faith.
This Hardshell wants us to believe that he is a "Primitive Baptist" because he teaches preservation as did the Apostle Paul. But, by this definition, his Hardshell forefathers who professed a belief in perseverance are not genuine "Primitive Baptists." He does not want us to define the label "Primitive Baptist" on the basis that one is teaching what is historic and traditional Baptist teaching. Of course, we know why. On this basis he is not a true old or primitive Baptist. But, all his Hardshell forefathers were express in saying that they believed that the new testament teaches what is expressed in their articles of faith.
How can this brother say that all his Baptist forefathers were in error in linking preservation with perseverance? How can he be so presumptuous as to think that he is wiser in the Scriptures than all of them? He also denies that they were "Primitive Baptists." He says "Primitive Baptists" believe in preservation but not in perseverance. So, all his Hardshell forefathers who assembled in Fulton, Kentucky to endorse the London Confession's statement on perseverance are not "Primitive Baptists." He did not say - "SOME Primitive Baptists" deny perseverance. The names of those who signed the Fulton Confession are recognized men in the Hardshell cult, men like S.F. and C.H. Cayce, J.M. Thompson, J.H. Oliphant, Lee Hanks, etc., are not "Primitive Baptists"!
He then says this:
"It follows by logical consequence that any attempt to validate the legitimacy of one’s theology by any measure other than scripture is quixotic sophistry."
It is true that the Scriptures are the final rule for deciding orthodoxy. But, it is difficult to think that such an important understanding about preservation and perseverance was lost by the Lord's church from the days of the Apostles until some few Hardshells in the latter end of the 19th century rediscovered it. Further, we have many Scriptures that teach clearly the doctrine of both preservation and perseverance and so we are willing to discuss with this brother what the Scriptues teach. But, we have already done this to some degree. Brother Fralick and I have cited Scriptures to this Hardshell brother that clearly teach perseverance and he has not demonstrated that those Scriptures do not teach it. We again invite this brother to read our series on "Hardshells and Perseverance."
This brother next writes to me, saying:
"You ask the question, “If you cannot (cite some old Baptist who agrees) and yet you believe that believing as you do is required for a church to be a legitimate church, how can you claim to be a Primitive Baptist?” In so doing you project a position onto me, namely that I believe that someone must believe as I do with respect to preservation/perseverance in order to be a legitimate church. I do not believe that. The bible is clear that mere doctrinal error is insufficient to make the determination as to whether or not a body of believers is a legitimate church."
I certainly do agree that an error in doctrine does not make a church illegitimate. But, it would be good if this brother practiced his beliefs. Have not the Hardshells said that they will not accept the baptisms and work of any church that is not of their fellowship? What doctrinal errors does he think invalidates a church? If a church believes, like the first Hardshell churches, that the Gospel is God's means in saving his elect from sin and damnation, and that they all will persevere in the faith of the Gospel, are they legitimate? If a church has musical instruments, is this church legitimate? If it is not legitimate, then is this brother not saying that an error regarding preservation/perseverance is not critical, but the musical instrument question is?
This brother then writes:
"That said, I believe that most Christian churches have done far more than merely stray-off-the-path into doctrinal error. They have canonized and institutionalized doctrinal error. In so doing they have hardened their hearts with respect to the truth and they visit great distress and confusion upon those of the Lord’s flock who find themselves in those assemblies. The unarguable fact that the VAST majority of professing Christian churches have doctrinal statements that are abjectly Arminian is proof positive of this statement."
According to this brother any church that is "Arminian" has doctrinal error that invalidates it as a church of Christ. But, we would first need to know what this brother would include in the label "Arminian." Many Hardshells do call certain doctrinal points "Arminian" when they are in fact not. We cited Elder John Watson and Elder John Clark who pointed out, in their day, how some Hardshells were calling those who believed in Gospel means, and in exhorting the lost, as "Arminian" when they were not. In fact, the Hardshells of today are contradictory on the point of whether the Gospel means position is either "Arminian" or "Calvinist." Many Hardshells today will say that the belief that God calls his elect by the Gospel, and who believe in the doctrines of grace, is "Calvinism," and they will tell us that "Primitive Baptists" are not Calvinists. So, which is it?
Consider also that what this brother teaches about conversion and "time salvation" is nothing but pure Arminianism. This is what Elder John Clark said about those Hardshells who think it unscriptual to preach to dead sinners. He wrote:
"To preach to men upon the ground that they have power to do what is commanded, or to refuse to preach to them because they have not the power, shows that the confidence is in the flesh and not in God; that they depend upon the will of the flesh and not upon the power God, and that is the very essence, double refined, of Arminianism."(see here for Clark's entire writing)
Further, this brother has already stated that error in doctrine does not necessarily make a church illegitimate so as to invalidate their baptisms. The church of Galatia, for instance, held to serious error but Paul still addressed them as churches of Christ. Does this Hardshell not realize that the Kehukee Association was once Arminian and that when they embraced Calvinism that they were not all re-baptized? Were those Kehukee churches illegitimate because they were not re-baptized? Further, Elder Sylvester Hassell said that the medieval churches that today's Hardshell churches descended from were Arminian?
This brother wrote further:
"These writings attribute the whole of our salvation to the work of God through the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to us, the imputation of our sins to Christ as our substitute...Paul said it best when he said that our salvation was "not by works of righteousness which we have done." (Tit 3:5) It follows that our righteous acts of perseverance have NOTHING to do with the work that populates heaven."
This false argumentation I answered in my previous posting "Demolishing Hardshell Reasoning." But, I wish to add to it the rebuttal observation that this kind of reasoning forces this brother to argue that his being converted was by his works, and not by grace; that his coming to know and believe in Christ was not by grace, and was not the work of God alone. His persevering loyalty to Christ and his word is not the work of God and his grace, but is his own work. In fact, any activity that this brother does he will not ascribe to the grace and work of God, but to himself, by his own reasoning.
This brother wrote further:
"We Primitive Baptists are in many respects quirky and imperfect. We are sinners saved by grace and nothing more. But I have yet to find a group of professing believers that is closer in doctrine and practice to what I find taught in the bible than the Primitive Baptist church."
When this Hardshell brother says that he is saved by grace, he certainly does not include his "time salvation," or his conversion to Christ. He will say that daily salvation from sin and trial is of works, by his own reasoning. And, as far as his thinking how the Hardshell cult is more perfect in doctrine and practice than any other group, this is just what we would expect from those in a cult would say. I am sure that those in the Jehovah's Witness, Mormon, and Catholic cults would say the same thing about their own denominations.
Now let me examine the writing of this brother to which I made comment. He wrote:
"In a recent internet discussion I was asked:
Could you clarify your beliefs on Perseverance? It sounds as if you don't believe that children of God will persevere in this world.
To which I provided the following response:
Primitive Baptists make a distinction between "Preservation" (Jude 1), which is the surety we have "in Christ" regarding our eternal destiny as a result of his finished work on behalf of his chosen people (Rom 8:31-39, John 10:28), and "Perseverance" which is a matter of temporal obedience to which God's people are admonished and exhorted. Failure to rightly divide these two results in a great deal of confusion."
The citation that this Hardshell brother refers to is that made by Elder Fralick. Of course, brother Fralick added Scripture to support his view that those who are chosen and called will certainly remain loyal to Christ and not fall totally and finally away. These Scriptures were never refuted by the Hardshell.
Further, as I have already pointed out, when he says "Primitive Baptists make a distinction between preservation and perseverance," he by this language says that those who do not make such a distinction are not "Primitive Baptists." But, in this he accuses his Hardshell forefathers of not being "Primitive Baptists." He also accuses his fellow Hardshells, such as Zack Guess and Lasserre Bradley, as not being "Primitive Baptists." And notice once again how he gives God all the credit for his being preserved but gives himself the credit for his persevering. His preservation is by God's grace and power but his persevering is by works and by his own power. Further, this disjointing of preservation and perseverance is not rightly dividing the word of truth but, as brother Fralick has said, is putting asunder what God has joined together. If this brother would take the time to read our series on "Hardshells and Perseverance" then he would see this to be the case.
He then wrote:
"Since the eternal salvation of God's chosen people is a monergistic work, that is, a work of God alone, there is therefore no room to include man's works in any way, shape, form, or fashion without denying the notion of monergism. Thus, there is simply no way to include those things which fall under the rubric of "perseverance" as conditions of our eternal salvation without the unavoidable logical consequence of leaving the realm of salvation by sovereign grace."
One can only guess what this Hardshell means when he says that eternal salvation "is a monergistic work." Does he mean that a person is saved whether he ever believes, repents, calls on the Lord, confesses Christ, etc.? Does he mean that the sinner in being quickened is entirely passive? If so, he ought to read our postings on "Active or Passive?" In these chapters I show how the sinner is indeed active in being saved and converted. He seems to define "monergistic work" as any work that involves only God being active. I wish this brother would apply his reasoning and argumentation to that passage we cited in an earlier posting where the prophet said "thou has wrought all our works in us." (Isa. 26: 12) Is this divine work of producing works in us monergistic? He says that "there is no way to include" our works into the "realm of sovereign grace." But, it seems to me that the prophet did this very thing in the passage just cited. So did Paul in I Cor. 15: 10. But, notice again how this Hardshell will not ascribe his conversion to Christ to sovereign grace.
He then wrote:
"That said, men are exhorted and admonished to persevere in the faith as a matter of obedient discipleship. To make this a condition of eternal salvation undeniably defines salvation as a matter of works, since all such obediences are undeniably works of righteousness. In stark contrast, Paul strictly excludes "works of righteousness which we have done" from having anything to do with the work that provided us eternal salvation. (Tit 3:5)"
Notice the presupposition that this brother has invented and which he takes to the Bible and tries to make the Bible to agree with it. His presupposition is that the Bible does not exhort men to persevere for being finally saved. But, the Bible is filled with such examples. For instance, see our posting titled Jesus Uproots Hardshellsim. Jesus said to men who he identified as being spiritually dead and said to them - "but these things I say, that ye might be saved." (John 5: 34) This cannot be a "time salvation" because the men he addressed were spiritually dead. Also, the early evangelists preached to multitudes and said to them:
"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord." (Acts 3: 19)
Now, when a Hardshell comes to such a passage as this with his presupposition, he sees that it contradicts his presupposition. But, rather than discarding his presupposition and accepting the plain truth of the passage, he rather begins to devise ways in which he can twist the plain meaning of the passage to make it agree with his presupposition. He sees that the passage exhorts lost sinners to repent and convert and that it is to the end that they might have their sins blotted out, especially when the Lord returns, which is that time of refreshing. Most Hardshells, in the face of such texts, will add a word to the text, and though that word is not in the text, will nevertheless affirm that such a word is implied. They will say that it is not the actual blotting out of sins that is intended, but the knowledge that they are blotted out. But, the text does not say that, of course.
This Hardshell will not want to say that this blotting out of sins has to do with one's eternal salvation because repentance and conversion are put as conditions. His presupposition will force him to twist the verse to make it deal with a "time salvation." Thus, this blotting out of sins becomes not the work of God and his grace, but the work of the sinner himself! Away with such handling of the word of God! We could multiply examples but is unnecessary, for if a man will twist one verse to uphold his presuppositions, then he will do so with a multitude.
The Hardshell apologist then says:
"The admonitions to persevere (1 Cor 15:2, John 15) have respect to our temporal enjoyment of the truth of our salvation and to our capacity for fruit-bearing in the kingdom of God in this life, and have NO reference to our eternal standing before the throne of God. Indeed if such admonitions DID have respect to our eternal destiny, then salvation is most assuredly by works rather than by grace, and Paul was quite mistaken when he said that our salvation is "not according to our works." (II Tim 1:9). Paul was not mistaken."
This Hardshell thinks that his simply saying that the salvation being talked about in the passages mentioned is a temporal salvation is sufficient to prove his point? Why does he not prove what he says? We would be happy to debate these texts with him and show him his error, but we first want his proof for such a wild novel interpretation.
Further, he keeps repeating his same argument which we have completely demolished just as Paul told us to do. His argumentum ad nauseam proves nothing. Why does he not simply give us Scripture that plainly says that men will be saved who did not believe, repent, or persevere? No, Paul was not mistaken, but this Hardshell is mistaken in his reading of Paul.
He then wrote:
"It follows that the sense in which God's people can be said to "persevere" in this life, is in the sense that we are "preserved" in a state of grace by the imputed righteousness of Christ which is "all our righteousness" and which is "not of our works" and which is vastly superior to the best obedience offered by the best of saints on the best of days. At the end of the day...
What lands us in heaven is the imputation of Christ's perfect righteousness, not our imperfect attempts at righteousness as disciples."
In this statement this Hardshell seems to think that there is a sense in which it may be said that the Lord's people persevere. But, his idea of perseverance is simply to affirm that the life and righteousness continue in a believer. But, this is clearly not the extent of the Bible teaching about perseverance. Paul had a different idea, however. He wrote to the Roman Christians and said:
"For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live." (Rom. 8: 13)
Obviously the apostle is not talking about physical death, for the Christians addressed were going to die physically whether they lived after the flesh or Spirit. Surely he is talking about the second death. And, what do we find John writing in regard to this second death in the Lake of Fire? John wrote:
"He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death." (Rev. 2: 11)
Clearly overcoming (persevering) is what men are to do in order to not be hurt of the second death. John further says that it is the "unbelieving" who will suffer the second death. (21: 8) John also said "To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God." (2: 7)
So, when Paul says "if you live after the flesh you shall die," he means "if you live after the flesh (or fail to persevere in faith and holiness) you will die the second death," and "if you live after the Spirit you will eat of the tree of life and live forever."
And, who is the overcomer, the one who perseveres? Wrote John:
"For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world." (I John 5: 4)
Obviously the Apostle John did not have any doubts that those who were born of God would persevere and overcome. He also wrote:
"We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not." (vs. 18)
Thus, the doctrine of the saints sure and certain perseverence is plainly taught in Scripture and we need not rely upon trying to base it upon speculative reasoning as does our Hardshell brother.
Before I examine this article, I want to give the comment I left him. I commented, saying:
Dear Brother:
"Can you give a citation from any of your Baptist forefathers, prior to the mid 19th century, who denied perseverance as you do? Can you cite one of them who taught that perseverance was only for a time salvation? If you cannot, and yet you believe that believing as you do is required for a church to be a legitimate church, how can you claim to be a primitive Baptist?"
In response, this Hardshell wrote me a lengthy reply, similar to the reply that he recently gave to Brother Fralick. I need not cite the entire comment, but he first replied by writing:
"My belief regarding perseverance comes directly from my understanding of scripture, not from citations of “Baptist forefathers prior to the mid 19th century.” I make my arguments from a systematic approach to the bible, not from Baptist history. Were I to do so, it would prove nothing with respect to the validity of my theological position."
The first thing to notice is how this brother basically admits that his view is novel among Particular or Calvinistic or Sovereign Grace Baptists. He knows he can find no one among his Baptist forefathers who denied that preservation involved perseverance. So, what does he do? He skips over centuries and claims that he is a "Primitive" Baptist because Paul and the new testament writers were Primitive Baptists and that they did not teach the doctrine of perseverance. So, what is he saying? He is saying that the truth about preservation was lost for centuries until it was restored by him and his modern Hardshells. He is saying that his Baptist forefathers were in error on this point, were not "rightly dividing the word of truth," and were basing salvation on something other than the atonement because they taught perseverance. That is indeed an outlandish claim. It reminds me of Alexander Campbell who also thought that the church had lost important truth until he came along to restore it. But, Campbell did not take the name of "Primitive Baptist" because he realized that there were not any groups in the days of the apostles or afterward (till the 17th century) who called themselves Baptists. He and his followers therefore wanted only to be called "Christian" and "church of Christ." This ought to have been what this Hardshell ought to do also, seeing he cannot find any Baptists, besides the Arminian or General Baptists, who denied perseverance. His forefathers who first adopted the name "Primitive Baptist" did so because they believed that they were holding to the beliefs of their Baptist forefathers who endorsed the London and Philadelphia Confessions of faith.
This Hardshell wants us to believe that he is a "Primitive Baptist" because he teaches preservation as did the Apostle Paul. But, by this definition, his Hardshell forefathers who professed a belief in perseverance are not genuine "Primitive Baptists." He does not want us to define the label "Primitive Baptist" on the basis that one is teaching what is historic and traditional Baptist teaching. Of course, we know why. On this basis he is not a true old or primitive Baptist. But, all his Hardshell forefathers were express in saying that they believed that the new testament teaches what is expressed in their articles of faith.
How can this brother say that all his Baptist forefathers were in error in linking preservation with perseverance? How can he be so presumptuous as to think that he is wiser in the Scriptures than all of them? He also denies that they were "Primitive Baptists." He says "Primitive Baptists" believe in preservation but not in perseverance. So, all his Hardshell forefathers who assembled in Fulton, Kentucky to endorse the London Confession's statement on perseverance are not "Primitive Baptists." He did not say - "SOME Primitive Baptists" deny perseverance. The names of those who signed the Fulton Confession are recognized men in the Hardshell cult, men like S.F. and C.H. Cayce, J.M. Thompson, J.H. Oliphant, Lee Hanks, etc., are not "Primitive Baptists"!
He then says this:
"It follows by logical consequence that any attempt to validate the legitimacy of one’s theology by any measure other than scripture is quixotic sophistry."
It is true that the Scriptures are the final rule for deciding orthodoxy. But, it is difficult to think that such an important understanding about preservation and perseverance was lost by the Lord's church from the days of the Apostles until some few Hardshells in the latter end of the 19th century rediscovered it. Further, we have many Scriptures that teach clearly the doctrine of both preservation and perseverance and so we are willing to discuss with this brother what the Scriptues teach. But, we have already done this to some degree. Brother Fralick and I have cited Scriptures to this Hardshell brother that clearly teach perseverance and he has not demonstrated that those Scriptures do not teach it. We again invite this brother to read our series on "Hardshells and Perseverance."
This brother next writes to me, saying:
"You ask the question, “If you cannot (cite some old Baptist who agrees) and yet you believe that believing as you do is required for a church to be a legitimate church, how can you claim to be a Primitive Baptist?” In so doing you project a position onto me, namely that I believe that someone must believe as I do with respect to preservation/perseverance in order to be a legitimate church. I do not believe that. The bible is clear that mere doctrinal error is insufficient to make the determination as to whether or not a body of believers is a legitimate church."
I certainly do agree that an error in doctrine does not make a church illegitimate. But, it would be good if this brother practiced his beliefs. Have not the Hardshells said that they will not accept the baptisms and work of any church that is not of their fellowship? What doctrinal errors does he think invalidates a church? If a church believes, like the first Hardshell churches, that the Gospel is God's means in saving his elect from sin and damnation, and that they all will persevere in the faith of the Gospel, are they legitimate? If a church has musical instruments, is this church legitimate? If it is not legitimate, then is this brother not saying that an error regarding preservation/perseverance is not critical, but the musical instrument question is?
This brother then writes:
"That said, I believe that most Christian churches have done far more than merely stray-off-the-path into doctrinal error. They have canonized and institutionalized doctrinal error. In so doing they have hardened their hearts with respect to the truth and they visit great distress and confusion upon those of the Lord’s flock who find themselves in those assemblies. The unarguable fact that the VAST majority of professing Christian churches have doctrinal statements that are abjectly Arminian is proof positive of this statement."
According to this brother any church that is "Arminian" has doctrinal error that invalidates it as a church of Christ. But, we would first need to know what this brother would include in the label "Arminian." Many Hardshells do call certain doctrinal points "Arminian" when they are in fact not. We cited Elder John Watson and Elder John Clark who pointed out, in their day, how some Hardshells were calling those who believed in Gospel means, and in exhorting the lost, as "Arminian" when they were not. In fact, the Hardshells of today are contradictory on the point of whether the Gospel means position is either "Arminian" or "Calvinist." Many Hardshells today will say that the belief that God calls his elect by the Gospel, and who believe in the doctrines of grace, is "Calvinism," and they will tell us that "Primitive Baptists" are not Calvinists. So, which is it?
Consider also that what this brother teaches about conversion and "time salvation" is nothing but pure Arminianism. This is what Elder John Clark said about those Hardshells who think it unscriptual to preach to dead sinners. He wrote:
"To preach to men upon the ground that they have power to do what is commanded, or to refuse to preach to them because they have not the power, shows that the confidence is in the flesh and not in God; that they depend upon the will of the flesh and not upon the power God, and that is the very essence, double refined, of Arminianism."(see here for Clark's entire writing)
Further, this brother has already stated that error in doctrine does not necessarily make a church illegitimate so as to invalidate their baptisms. The church of Galatia, for instance, held to serious error but Paul still addressed them as churches of Christ. Does this Hardshell not realize that the Kehukee Association was once Arminian and that when they embraced Calvinism that they were not all re-baptized? Were those Kehukee churches illegitimate because they were not re-baptized? Further, Elder Sylvester Hassell said that the medieval churches that today's Hardshell churches descended from were Arminian?
This brother wrote further:
"These writings attribute the whole of our salvation to the work of God through the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to us, the imputation of our sins to Christ as our substitute...Paul said it best when he said that our salvation was "not by works of righteousness which we have done." (Tit 3:5) It follows that our righteous acts of perseverance have NOTHING to do with the work that populates heaven."
This false argumentation I answered in my previous posting "Demolishing Hardshell Reasoning." But, I wish to add to it the rebuttal observation that this kind of reasoning forces this brother to argue that his being converted was by his works, and not by grace; that his coming to know and believe in Christ was not by grace, and was not the work of God alone. His persevering loyalty to Christ and his word is not the work of God and his grace, but is his own work. In fact, any activity that this brother does he will not ascribe to the grace and work of God, but to himself, by his own reasoning.
This brother wrote further:
"We Primitive Baptists are in many respects quirky and imperfect. We are sinners saved by grace and nothing more. But I have yet to find a group of professing believers that is closer in doctrine and practice to what I find taught in the bible than the Primitive Baptist church."
When this Hardshell brother says that he is saved by grace, he certainly does not include his "time salvation," or his conversion to Christ. He will say that daily salvation from sin and trial is of works, by his own reasoning. And, as far as his thinking how the Hardshell cult is more perfect in doctrine and practice than any other group, this is just what we would expect from those in a cult would say. I am sure that those in the Jehovah's Witness, Mormon, and Catholic cults would say the same thing about their own denominations.
Now let me examine the writing of this brother to which I made comment. He wrote:
"In a recent internet discussion I was asked:
Could you clarify your beliefs on Perseverance? It sounds as if you don't believe that children of God will persevere in this world.
To which I provided the following response:
Primitive Baptists make a distinction between "Preservation" (Jude 1), which is the surety we have "in Christ" regarding our eternal destiny as a result of his finished work on behalf of his chosen people (Rom 8:31-39, John 10:28), and "Perseverance" which is a matter of temporal obedience to which God's people are admonished and exhorted. Failure to rightly divide these two results in a great deal of confusion."
The citation that this Hardshell brother refers to is that made by Elder Fralick. Of course, brother Fralick added Scripture to support his view that those who are chosen and called will certainly remain loyal to Christ and not fall totally and finally away. These Scriptures were never refuted by the Hardshell.
Further, as I have already pointed out, when he says "Primitive Baptists make a distinction between preservation and perseverance," he by this language says that those who do not make such a distinction are not "Primitive Baptists." But, in this he accuses his Hardshell forefathers of not being "Primitive Baptists." He also accuses his fellow Hardshells, such as Zack Guess and Lasserre Bradley, as not being "Primitive Baptists." And notice once again how he gives God all the credit for his being preserved but gives himself the credit for his persevering. His preservation is by God's grace and power but his persevering is by works and by his own power. Further, this disjointing of preservation and perseverance is not rightly dividing the word of truth but, as brother Fralick has said, is putting asunder what God has joined together. If this brother would take the time to read our series on "Hardshells and Perseverance" then he would see this to be the case.
He then wrote:
"Since the eternal salvation of God's chosen people is a monergistic work, that is, a work of God alone, there is therefore no room to include man's works in any way, shape, form, or fashion without denying the notion of monergism. Thus, there is simply no way to include those things which fall under the rubric of "perseverance" as conditions of our eternal salvation without the unavoidable logical consequence of leaving the realm of salvation by sovereign grace."
One can only guess what this Hardshell means when he says that eternal salvation "is a monergistic work." Does he mean that a person is saved whether he ever believes, repents, calls on the Lord, confesses Christ, etc.? Does he mean that the sinner in being quickened is entirely passive? If so, he ought to read our postings on "Active or Passive?" In these chapters I show how the sinner is indeed active in being saved and converted. He seems to define "monergistic work" as any work that involves only God being active. I wish this brother would apply his reasoning and argumentation to that passage we cited in an earlier posting where the prophet said "thou has wrought all our works in us." (Isa. 26: 12) Is this divine work of producing works in us monergistic? He says that "there is no way to include" our works into the "realm of sovereign grace." But, it seems to me that the prophet did this very thing in the passage just cited. So did Paul in I Cor. 15: 10. But, notice again how this Hardshell will not ascribe his conversion to Christ to sovereign grace.
He then wrote:
"That said, men are exhorted and admonished to persevere in the faith as a matter of obedient discipleship. To make this a condition of eternal salvation undeniably defines salvation as a matter of works, since all such obediences are undeniably works of righteousness. In stark contrast, Paul strictly excludes "works of righteousness which we have done" from having anything to do with the work that provided us eternal salvation. (Tit 3:5)"
Notice the presupposition that this brother has invented and which he takes to the Bible and tries to make the Bible to agree with it. His presupposition is that the Bible does not exhort men to persevere for being finally saved. But, the Bible is filled with such examples. For instance, see our posting titled Jesus Uproots Hardshellsim. Jesus said to men who he identified as being spiritually dead and said to them - "but these things I say, that ye might be saved." (John 5: 34) This cannot be a "time salvation" because the men he addressed were spiritually dead. Also, the early evangelists preached to multitudes and said to them:
"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord." (Acts 3: 19)
Now, when a Hardshell comes to such a passage as this with his presupposition, he sees that it contradicts his presupposition. But, rather than discarding his presupposition and accepting the plain truth of the passage, he rather begins to devise ways in which he can twist the plain meaning of the passage to make it agree with his presupposition. He sees that the passage exhorts lost sinners to repent and convert and that it is to the end that they might have their sins blotted out, especially when the Lord returns, which is that time of refreshing. Most Hardshells, in the face of such texts, will add a word to the text, and though that word is not in the text, will nevertheless affirm that such a word is implied. They will say that it is not the actual blotting out of sins that is intended, but the knowledge that they are blotted out. But, the text does not say that, of course.
This Hardshell will not want to say that this blotting out of sins has to do with one's eternal salvation because repentance and conversion are put as conditions. His presupposition will force him to twist the verse to make it deal with a "time salvation." Thus, this blotting out of sins becomes not the work of God and his grace, but the work of the sinner himself! Away with such handling of the word of God! We could multiply examples but is unnecessary, for if a man will twist one verse to uphold his presuppositions, then he will do so with a multitude.
The Hardshell apologist then says:
"The admonitions to persevere (1 Cor 15:2, John 15) have respect to our temporal enjoyment of the truth of our salvation and to our capacity for fruit-bearing in the kingdom of God in this life, and have NO reference to our eternal standing before the throne of God. Indeed if such admonitions DID have respect to our eternal destiny, then salvation is most assuredly by works rather than by grace, and Paul was quite mistaken when he said that our salvation is "not according to our works." (II Tim 1:9). Paul was not mistaken."
This Hardshell thinks that his simply saying that the salvation being talked about in the passages mentioned is a temporal salvation is sufficient to prove his point? Why does he not prove what he says? We would be happy to debate these texts with him and show him his error, but we first want his proof for such a wild novel interpretation.
Further, he keeps repeating his same argument which we have completely demolished just as Paul told us to do. His argumentum ad nauseam proves nothing. Why does he not simply give us Scripture that plainly says that men will be saved who did not believe, repent, or persevere? No, Paul was not mistaken, but this Hardshell is mistaken in his reading of Paul.
He then wrote:
"It follows that the sense in which God's people can be said to "persevere" in this life, is in the sense that we are "preserved" in a state of grace by the imputed righteousness of Christ which is "all our righteousness" and which is "not of our works" and which is vastly superior to the best obedience offered by the best of saints on the best of days. At the end of the day...
What lands us in heaven is the imputation of Christ's perfect righteousness, not our imperfect attempts at righteousness as disciples."
In this statement this Hardshell seems to think that there is a sense in which it may be said that the Lord's people persevere. But, his idea of perseverance is simply to affirm that the life and righteousness continue in a believer. But, this is clearly not the extent of the Bible teaching about perseverance. Paul had a different idea, however. He wrote to the Roman Christians and said:
"For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live." (Rom. 8: 13)
Obviously the apostle is not talking about physical death, for the Christians addressed were going to die physically whether they lived after the flesh or Spirit. Surely he is talking about the second death. And, what do we find John writing in regard to this second death in the Lake of Fire? John wrote:
"He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death." (Rev. 2: 11)
Clearly overcoming (persevering) is what men are to do in order to not be hurt of the second death. John further says that it is the "unbelieving" who will suffer the second death. (21: 8) John also said "To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God." (2: 7)
So, when Paul says "if you live after the flesh you shall die," he means "if you live after the flesh (or fail to persevere in faith and holiness) you will die the second death," and "if you live after the Spirit you will eat of the tree of life and live forever."
And, who is the overcomer, the one who perseveres? Wrote John:
"For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world." (I John 5: 4)
Obviously the Apostle John did not have any doubts that those who were born of God would persevere and overcome. He also wrote:
"We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not." (vs. 18)
Thus, the doctrine of the saints sure and certain perseverence is plainly taught in Scripture and we need not rely upon trying to base it upon speculative reasoning as does our Hardshell brother.
Saturday, November 2, 2013
Demolishing Hardshell Reasoning
"Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ." (II Cor. 10: 5)
Some better translations for "casting down imaginations" are "overthrowing reasonings" (Darby), "destroying speculations" (NASB), and "demolish arguments" (NIV). This is what we do when we do apologetics, which all Christians should be able to do, to one degree or another. (See I Peter 3: 15) Much false doctrine is built upon false reasonings and incorrect interpretations of Scripture. The Hardshell Baptists of today put forth such reasonings, arguments, and speculations that are to be overthrown and destroyed.
One argument that was recently made by the Hardshell apologist at theearstohear blog against perseverance being necessary to final salvation was that such a view was against salvation being by grace and for a salvation by works (which is denied in Scripture). This Hardshell argued that since the Bible affirms that salvation is not by works, therefore it is not by persevering. This is an argument based upon a presumed logical deductive argument of a Scripture passage, and not from a clear express statement of Scripture. This Hardshell can find no express Scripture that says that salvation is not by persevering so he has to say that such a proposition is logically deducible. In other words "not by works" logically infers "not by perseverance."
When Paul says that salvation is "not by works of righteousness which we have done" (Titus 3: 5) and "not according to our works" (II Tim. 1: 9) and "not of works" (Eph. 2: 9), the Hardshell, like other Hardshells, interprets "works" to refer to any act of a man. Further, since verbs are action words, there is no verb used in Scripture to refer to any action of a sinner unto eternal salvation. Thus, by this reasoning, not only must one exclude perseverance being necessary for salvation, but all these things also.
Sinners do not have to hear the Father or Son of God to be saved, for hearing is action (work) and salvation is not by works. Yet Jesus said that all who hear from the Father come to him (John 6: 45), and all who hear the voice of the Son of God live. (John 5: 25)
Sinners do not have to learn from the Father, for learning is action and salvation is not by any action of the sinner. Yet Jesus said all who hear and learn of the Father come to him. (John 6: 45)
Sinners do not have to come to Christ to be saved, for coming is an action and salvation is not through human action. Yet Jesus said that one must come to him for life. (John 5: 40)
Sinners do not have to believe in either the Father or the Son to be saved, for believing is an action and salvation is not by human action. Yet the record is that the "unbelieving" will have his part in the Lake of Fire, and he who does not believe will be damned. (Rev. 21: 8, Mark 16: 16)
Sinners do not have to repent to be saved, for repenting is an action and salvation is not by human acts.
He does not have to obey the Gospel.
He does not have to call on the name of the Lord.
He does not have to confess Christ.
He does not have to turn from serving idols.
He does not have to love God.
He does not have to receive Christ or the atonement.
This is Antinomianism and a denial of human responsibility.
This is a denial that all the actions (verbs) enumerated result from the grace and work of God. Though it is we who do the acts it is also at the same time the works of God. So testified the prophet - "thou also hast wrought all our works in us." (Isa. 26: 12) So, though salvation is predicated or conditioned upon the above enumerated acts and activities, they are themselves predicated upon the gracious work of God. So Paul also wrote:
"But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me." (I Cor. 15: 10)
The writer of Acts says that people "believed through grace." (Acts 18: 27) And Paul says that people believe "according to the working of his mighty power." (Eph. 1: 19) Though it is the creature who does the believing activity, yet it is conditioned upon God's acting. Thus, there ought not to be any opposition seen between our acting for our salvation and God acting for our acting.
Now notice these words of the Apostle.
"That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises." (Heb. 6: 13)
Notice that two things are named as conditions for obtaining "the promises." They are faith (belief) and patience. The Greek word for "patience" is "makrothymia" and means endurance or perseverance. Further, patience implies faith. But, Hardshells deny that there are any conditions or activities that people do in order to obtain the promises of God. What will the Hardshell do with such verses? Will he not try to say that the promises that are obtained by faith and patience are temporal promises only? Yet, in this he is simply bringing his presuppositions to the text. But, the text does not say "temporal promises" but simply "the promises," which includes the "promise of eternal life" (Titus 1: 2), and those in the context of the Hebrew epistle, including "the promise of eternal inheritance" (Heb. 9: 15)
Paul also wrote in this same epistle:
"For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise." (Heb. 10: 36)
Here the Greek word for "patience" is "hypomonÄ" and denotes steadfastness, constancy, and endurance.
So, how do we harmonize those passages which say that past, present, or future salvation is not "by" works? Is it not by the way I have shown? We are not saved by works that we have done apart from God's grace and working. We are not saved on the basis of our works but they are means that God has ordained and promised to work in his elect. Further, it is not the teaching of Scripture that we are finally saved because we believed, repented, loved, persevered, etc., but these are the things that are characteristic of those who have been chosen and called. If a man who professes Christ does not persevere, does not continue in the faith, then he manifests that he was never truly chosen and called.
I hope that this helps those Hardshells who are falsely reasoning on these things.
Some better translations for "casting down imaginations" are "overthrowing reasonings" (Darby), "destroying speculations" (NASB), and "demolish arguments" (NIV). This is what we do when we do apologetics, which all Christians should be able to do, to one degree or another. (See I Peter 3: 15) Much false doctrine is built upon false reasonings and incorrect interpretations of Scripture. The Hardshell Baptists of today put forth such reasonings, arguments, and speculations that are to be overthrown and destroyed.
One argument that was recently made by the Hardshell apologist at theearstohear blog against perseverance being necessary to final salvation was that such a view was against salvation being by grace and for a salvation by works (which is denied in Scripture). This Hardshell argued that since the Bible affirms that salvation is not by works, therefore it is not by persevering. This is an argument based upon a presumed logical deductive argument of a Scripture passage, and not from a clear express statement of Scripture. This Hardshell can find no express Scripture that says that salvation is not by persevering so he has to say that such a proposition is logically deducible. In other words "not by works" logically infers "not by perseverance."
When Paul says that salvation is "not by works of righteousness which we have done" (Titus 3: 5) and "not according to our works" (II Tim. 1: 9) and "not of works" (Eph. 2: 9), the Hardshell, like other Hardshells, interprets "works" to refer to any act of a man. Further, since verbs are action words, there is no verb used in Scripture to refer to any action of a sinner unto eternal salvation. Thus, by this reasoning, not only must one exclude perseverance being necessary for salvation, but all these things also.
Sinners do not have to hear the Father or Son of God to be saved, for hearing is action (work) and salvation is not by works. Yet Jesus said that all who hear from the Father come to him (John 6: 45), and all who hear the voice of the Son of God live. (John 5: 25)
Sinners do not have to learn from the Father, for learning is action and salvation is not by any action of the sinner. Yet Jesus said all who hear and learn of the Father come to him. (John 6: 45)
Sinners do not have to come to Christ to be saved, for coming is an action and salvation is not through human action. Yet Jesus said that one must come to him for life. (John 5: 40)
Sinners do not have to believe in either the Father or the Son to be saved, for believing is an action and salvation is not by human action. Yet the record is that the "unbelieving" will have his part in the Lake of Fire, and he who does not believe will be damned. (Rev. 21: 8, Mark 16: 16)
Sinners do not have to repent to be saved, for repenting is an action and salvation is not by human acts.
He does not have to obey the Gospel.
He does not have to call on the name of the Lord.
He does not have to confess Christ.
He does not have to turn from serving idols.
He does not have to love God.
He does not have to receive Christ or the atonement.
This is Antinomianism and a denial of human responsibility.
This is a denial that all the actions (verbs) enumerated result from the grace and work of God. Though it is we who do the acts it is also at the same time the works of God. So testified the prophet - "thou also hast wrought all our works in us." (Isa. 26: 12) So, though salvation is predicated or conditioned upon the above enumerated acts and activities, they are themselves predicated upon the gracious work of God. So Paul also wrote:
"But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me." (I Cor. 15: 10)
The writer of Acts says that people "believed through grace." (Acts 18: 27) And Paul says that people believe "according to the working of his mighty power." (Eph. 1: 19) Though it is the creature who does the believing activity, yet it is conditioned upon God's acting. Thus, there ought not to be any opposition seen between our acting for our salvation and God acting for our acting.
Now notice these words of the Apostle.
"That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises." (Heb. 6: 13)
Notice that two things are named as conditions for obtaining "the promises." They are faith (belief) and patience. The Greek word for "patience" is "makrothymia" and means endurance or perseverance. Further, patience implies faith. But, Hardshells deny that there are any conditions or activities that people do in order to obtain the promises of God. What will the Hardshell do with such verses? Will he not try to say that the promises that are obtained by faith and patience are temporal promises only? Yet, in this he is simply bringing his presuppositions to the text. But, the text does not say "temporal promises" but simply "the promises," which includes the "promise of eternal life" (Titus 1: 2), and those in the context of the Hebrew epistle, including "the promise of eternal inheritance" (Heb. 9: 15)
Paul also wrote in this same epistle:
"For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise." (Heb. 10: 36)
Here the Greek word for "patience" is "hypomonÄ" and denotes steadfastness, constancy, and endurance.
So, how do we harmonize those passages which say that past, present, or future salvation is not "by" works? Is it not by the way I have shown? We are not saved by works that we have done apart from God's grace and working. We are not saved on the basis of our works but they are means that God has ordained and promised to work in his elect. Further, it is not the teaching of Scripture that we are finally saved because we believed, repented, loved, persevered, etc., but these are the things that are characteristic of those who have been chosen and called. If a man who professes Christ does not persevere, does not continue in the faith, then he manifests that he was never truly chosen and called.
I hope that this helps those Hardshells who are falsely reasoning on these things.
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
Watson's Condemnation Continued
Elder John M. Watson's book "The Old Baptist Test" is a must read for anyone doing serious study into the history of the "Primitive Baptist Church." As has been noted before, Elder Watson was a first generation leader of the newly formed denomination, and labored during the formative years of the 1830s through the middle of the 1860s. His views can be taken as an example of what the first generation Hardshells believed and may be compared with what today's Hardshells believe. He recorded how many of the "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists were going to extremes in their fight against Baptists who supported mission work and religious education. I am sure that this old preacher died (1866) grieving over these extreme departures from the historic old Baptist faith, and he called those who were promoting these new doctrines "modern innovators," "ultraists," etc.
It is impossible for anyone to read the following citations from Watson (together with previous citations given in preceding postings) and deny that Watson believed in the Gospel means position. Yet, this is exactly what Elder Lemuel Potter did in his 1887 debate with W.P. Throgmorton. He affirmed that Watson did not advocate the means position. But, Potter either cannot read plain English or told a falsehood. Further, Elder Potter may be considered as one of the creators of modern Hardshellism, being one of the "modern innovators" and "ultraist" that Watson warned against. Potter, together with men like John R. Daily, T.S. Dalton, Charles Waters, C.H. Cayce, and R.W. and J.M. Thompson, Walter Cash, helped to make the Hardshell church into what it is today.
Watson wrote:
"A gospel without exhortation; without a call on the sinner to repent and believe; a gospel which does not in word address itself to all; is not the gospel which Christ ordained subordinately for the bringing in of his "other sheep."" (page 86)
Watson says that the Hardshells who were against preaching the Gospel to the unregenerate, and denying that it was a means in regeneration, were not in possession of the true Gospel. This is a serious indictment. Today's Hardshells think that they are the only ones who are preaching the true Gospel, but the truth is, they do not preach it if they do not believe the Gospel is to be preached to all. Further, the day that the Hardshells discarded this belief and practice is the day that the Hardshell church began to wither and die, and the day when they became a cult. They will never again see escape from this curse until they once again begin to preach to sinners and to exhort them to believe and repent in order to be saved.
When I was a young Hardshell pastor, I struggled with this issue. I wanted to urge sinners about their situation, and point them to the way of salvation. I was concerned about the lack of conversions and wanted to bring my sermon messages to a point where I exhorted the sinner about his need to call on Christ. I gave the typical Hardshell invitation at the end of every sermon which was simply to say "the doors of the church are open for anyone who wants to join." But, to me, this was simply not the best or only way.
Watson also wrote:
"Let us take a practical example. We have it on record in the 13th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. When Paul and Barnabas preached at Antioch of Pisidia, had any of our ultra brethren been there and heard their zealous appeal to all those present, they would have called them Armminians." (ibid)
Today's Hardshells are totally made of "ultra" brethren, people who will not preach to dead sinners as did Christ and his apostles. If one today preaches in such a fashion, he would indeed be called "Arminian" by the neo Hardshells. In failing to preach evangelistically to sinners, today's Hardshells are not in league with the Old Baptists of the 17th and 18th centuries, their forefathers, and not in league with their own founding fathers of the 19th century, with men like Leland, Watson, Fain, and Grigg Thompson, men who regularly called upon sinners to believe in Christ for salvation.
Watson also wrote:
"Let us see: The zealous preacher calls on all to repent, earnestly, faithfully and I may add, gospelly, but alas! the old brother whose head has got wrong, whose heart has grown cold, says all cannot repent, some have not the power to do so. How does he know? Peradventure the Lord has given the power to repent to the very ones whom he has in his feelings excluded.." (page 87)
In this quotation, and the preceding one, Watson mentions giving "zealous appeal," to the lost, and doing so "earnestly," a thing which you will not see in today's Hardshell churches. They feel no burden to the lost nor believe that their preaching has any power to raise the spiritually dead to life. Watson says that these ultra Hardshells not only do not preach the Gospel but have hearts that have grown cold and who had heads that are wrong. Simply put, today's Hardshells do not believe that the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation.
Watson also wrote:
"How mortifying to the feelings of a faithful preacher to be called an Arminian on account of preaching according to the very commission which Christ gave for the rule and government of his ministry. Brethren preachers, it is high time that we strive to please God in this affair rather than men. It is high time indeed that some of us were waking up on this subject; let us rather exhort our opposing brethren to pray the Lord that he would open the hearts of our hearers to attend to the truths which we may preach, knowing that none will heed to profit without this blessing, to the great end that the 'other sheep" of our day may be brought in. Here again the objector says, why pray for that which is sure? This, verily is the very reason why we should pray for it..." (page 88)
Oh that these words of wisdom would have been heeded by the Hardshells! They need little comment. There is one historical observation that ought to be made, however. Obviously by 1866 the anti means view of regeneration was gaining ground. What brought about this change? Is it not because the opposition to mission methods by itself lacked strength? Did simply attacking methods, after awhile, begin to "wear thin" as Brother Ross has stated in his work?
Watson wrote:
"There are yet a few who contend for the general outward call of the Gospel, but we doctrinise it too much, lest some ultra brother should conclude that we are Arminians." (page 89)
Notice the historical significance of these words of Watson. He says "there are yet a few," which indicates that in 1866 the no means position had gotten the upper hand. Watson says that it was the tactic of the "ultra brother" to label all who believed in the outward general call of the Gospel, or in exhorting the lost, or in Gospel means regeneration, as "Arminian" that led to the dwindling of those who held to the Gospel means position. These ultraist brethren used cult tactics to win in this war. They threatened the side who retained a belief in means. They intimidated them.
Watson wrote:
"Further, I was much surprised as well as mortified that they evinced so little concern about the unbrought "other sheep" which the Saviour said he must bring. They lay great stress on these words of the Saviour, but do not regard other things which he connected with the bringing them in as they ought to do. I heard but few prayers for the sending forth of laborers into his field; nor did I see much concern in any way about them." (page 181)
Watson says that he was both "surprised" and "mortified" to see so little concern about the lost. But, it really ought not to have been a surprise for it should have been evident to such a learned man as Watson to have foreseen what the opposition to missions, religious education, and evangelism, would eventually lead to. We who look back see clearly how such opposition led to a change in doctrine regarding means and perseverance.
It is to the credit of Watson that he felt mortified by the unconcern and apathy that his fellow Hardshells showed towards the lost, especially in foreign lands. Watson saw this unbecoming spirit begin to take over the newly formed denomination, and if he were alive today he would see how such a spirit has pervaded the denomination. A Christian who has no concern about sending the Gospel to the lost, that they might be saved, is a Christian who has a spirit that ought to be condemned.
Watson wrote:
"I felt inclined to ask these orthodox Christians, if they believed that any of the "other sheep" are now among the heathen nations? and if they were watching the providence of God in regard to them? Moreover, if they felt under any obligations to search them out; to pray unto the Lord to bring them in; and to encourage, aid and send out any who may feel called of the Lord to preach to them?"
How would today's Hardshells respond to such questions? If they searched their hearts, would they not have to confess that they live from day to day with little or no concern for the lost souls in heathen lands? Do they not feel no obligation towards them? Do they not think that it is God's responsibiility alone and not theirs? What is this but Antinomianism?
Further, Watson mentions encouraging, aiding, and sending out those who have been called to preach to those poor lost heathens. But, as we have already seen, today's Hardshells feel no duty or desire to do any of these things. Recall how I cited from Hardshell testimony in the Mt. Carmel Church trial in which a Hardshell said that he felt no duty to even give encouragement or one cent to help such a preacher to preach to the heathen.
Watson continued:
"I find that the great extravagance of many who have engaged in this work has had a very bad influence on these people, and probably prevented them in some instances from performing their duty toward the "other sheep" which may be in distant countries. And I really fear should any one profess a call of this kind, he would not receive the fellowship and assistance which he would be entitled to. Thus I fear they do not act as did those who heeded all the commandments of the Lord." (pages 181-82)
What is Watson saying? Is he not saying that the Hardshells, in opposing mission methods of others, went to an opposite extreme? He says their opposition to the "great extravagance" of some Mission Baptists led them to neglect their "duty" towards the elect who are lost in heathen darkness. He testifies of his fear that this Hardshell extremism would lead to the Hardshells doing nothing to help see that the Gospel was sent to the heathen. His fears, as history shows, was indeed what actually materialized. The Hardshells today have violated the commission of the Lord, and are a disobedient people, not doing what the Lord has commanded them today. Why do they think that they shall escape the judgment of God for this?
Watson continued:
"Who of us are...sinning in propagating Protestant heresies, or Old Baptist ultraisms. We can readily see the absurdities of Romanism, the errors of many Protestant sects, and avoid them, but we do not recognize, as heresies, those hurtful ultraisms which are eating, as doth a canker, upon our very vitals as a denomination-a denomination which very justly boasts of its antiquity, and of having never acknowledged any other rule of faith and practice but that of the Bible. But some of our brethren are interpreting many of its blessed truths in such a way as to lead off their hearers from the Old Baptist platform of principles." (page 300)
What Watson here says is what I have been saying throughout my writings against the Hardshells. If Watson were alive today, he would join Elder Fralick and me in writing against the errors of today's Hardshells. The modern Hardshell church has seen the cancer of "Old Baptist ultraisms" metastasize and reach its final stage. These ultraisms he labels as "heresies." He says that these new interpretations of Scripture, wherein means are denied, and duty to fulfill the Great Commission is set aside, etc., were leading the denomination away "from the Old Baptist platform of principles." This is exactly what brother Fralick and I have been also proclaiming.
Was Watson wrong when he says that these ultraisms of those who were calling themselves "Old" or "Primitive" Baptists was a departure from the historic teaching of their Old Baptist forefathers? What Hardshell can come forward today with the evidence to disprove his assertion? Have we not presented all kinds of evidence in my book and in my blogs that show that the Hardshell no means view is an innovation in doctrine, not held to by the ancestors of the Hardshells?
Watson continued:
"No wonder we have perversions, heresies, debates and divisions among us, from such a deceitful handling of the Word of God; a part carried far beyond its true import, and another portion suppressed just as may subserve their tenets or fancies." (page 319)
Notice again how Watson says that the no means, Spirit alone, view of regeneration, and the denial that the Great Commission is yet an obligation of the church, is the result not only of faulty interpretation of Scripture, but from a "deceitful handling of the Word of God." How accurate is this judgment! The hermeneutics of the Hardshells is so faulty. They feel no judgment for their handling of the word of God in the manner they do. They twist it, they pervert it, and feel no sense of wrong for doing it. They do not realize how great an evil it is to as they do. The Scriptures that teach against their peculiar beliefs they truly do suppress or else try to make them say what they obviously do not say. They come to the Scriptures with their "fancies," with their peculiar tenets and presuppositions and are guilty of eisegesis. I hopefully will have a couple chapters on "Hardshell Hermeneutics" and "Hardshell Amillenialism" which will demonstrate the errors of the Hardshells in how they interpret Scripture.
Watson continued:
"To show that the will of God is in His word, of His own will, says James, begat he us with the word of truth. The proof that His everlasting love is in it, is that with loving kindness He draws believers to Christ." (page 421)
This is the truth that was discarded by second and third generation Hardshells, and which had even begun in the latter days of Watson's life. They deny that the word of truth is God's instrument in begetting sinners to life. Today's Hardshells are suffering the consequences of such a departure from the Scriptures and the historic Baptist faith.
It is impossible for anyone to read the following citations from Watson (together with previous citations given in preceding postings) and deny that Watson believed in the Gospel means position. Yet, this is exactly what Elder Lemuel Potter did in his 1887 debate with W.P. Throgmorton. He affirmed that Watson did not advocate the means position. But, Potter either cannot read plain English or told a falsehood. Further, Elder Potter may be considered as one of the creators of modern Hardshellism, being one of the "modern innovators" and "ultraist" that Watson warned against. Potter, together with men like John R. Daily, T.S. Dalton, Charles Waters, C.H. Cayce, and R.W. and J.M. Thompson, Walter Cash, helped to make the Hardshell church into what it is today.
Watson wrote:
"A gospel without exhortation; without a call on the sinner to repent and believe; a gospel which does not in word address itself to all; is not the gospel which Christ ordained subordinately for the bringing in of his "other sheep."" (page 86)
Watson says that the Hardshells who were against preaching the Gospel to the unregenerate, and denying that it was a means in regeneration, were not in possession of the true Gospel. This is a serious indictment. Today's Hardshells think that they are the only ones who are preaching the true Gospel, but the truth is, they do not preach it if they do not believe the Gospel is to be preached to all. Further, the day that the Hardshells discarded this belief and practice is the day that the Hardshell church began to wither and die, and the day when they became a cult. They will never again see escape from this curse until they once again begin to preach to sinners and to exhort them to believe and repent in order to be saved.
When I was a young Hardshell pastor, I struggled with this issue. I wanted to urge sinners about their situation, and point them to the way of salvation. I was concerned about the lack of conversions and wanted to bring my sermon messages to a point where I exhorted the sinner about his need to call on Christ. I gave the typical Hardshell invitation at the end of every sermon which was simply to say "the doors of the church are open for anyone who wants to join." But, to me, this was simply not the best or only way.
Watson also wrote:
"Let us take a practical example. We have it on record in the 13th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. When Paul and Barnabas preached at Antioch of Pisidia, had any of our ultra brethren been there and heard their zealous appeal to all those present, they would have called them Armminians." (ibid)
Today's Hardshells are totally made of "ultra" brethren, people who will not preach to dead sinners as did Christ and his apostles. If one today preaches in such a fashion, he would indeed be called "Arminian" by the neo Hardshells. In failing to preach evangelistically to sinners, today's Hardshells are not in league with the Old Baptists of the 17th and 18th centuries, their forefathers, and not in league with their own founding fathers of the 19th century, with men like Leland, Watson, Fain, and Grigg Thompson, men who regularly called upon sinners to believe in Christ for salvation.
Watson also wrote:
"Let us see: The zealous preacher calls on all to repent, earnestly, faithfully and I may add, gospelly, but alas! the old brother whose head has got wrong, whose heart has grown cold, says all cannot repent, some have not the power to do so. How does he know? Peradventure the Lord has given the power to repent to the very ones whom he has in his feelings excluded.." (page 87)
In this quotation, and the preceding one, Watson mentions giving "zealous appeal," to the lost, and doing so "earnestly," a thing which you will not see in today's Hardshell churches. They feel no burden to the lost nor believe that their preaching has any power to raise the spiritually dead to life. Watson says that these ultra Hardshells not only do not preach the Gospel but have hearts that have grown cold and who had heads that are wrong. Simply put, today's Hardshells do not believe that the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation.
Watson also wrote:
"How mortifying to the feelings of a faithful preacher to be called an Arminian on account of preaching according to the very commission which Christ gave for the rule and government of his ministry. Brethren preachers, it is high time that we strive to please God in this affair rather than men. It is high time indeed that some of us were waking up on this subject; let us rather exhort our opposing brethren to pray the Lord that he would open the hearts of our hearers to attend to the truths which we may preach, knowing that none will heed to profit without this blessing, to the great end that the 'other sheep" of our day may be brought in. Here again the objector says, why pray for that which is sure? This, verily is the very reason why we should pray for it..." (page 88)
Oh that these words of wisdom would have been heeded by the Hardshells! They need little comment. There is one historical observation that ought to be made, however. Obviously by 1866 the anti means view of regeneration was gaining ground. What brought about this change? Is it not because the opposition to mission methods by itself lacked strength? Did simply attacking methods, after awhile, begin to "wear thin" as Brother Ross has stated in his work?
Watson wrote:
"There are yet a few who contend for the general outward call of the Gospel, but we doctrinise it too much, lest some ultra brother should conclude that we are Arminians." (page 89)
Notice the historical significance of these words of Watson. He says "there are yet a few," which indicates that in 1866 the no means position had gotten the upper hand. Watson says that it was the tactic of the "ultra brother" to label all who believed in the outward general call of the Gospel, or in exhorting the lost, or in Gospel means regeneration, as "Arminian" that led to the dwindling of those who held to the Gospel means position. These ultraist brethren used cult tactics to win in this war. They threatened the side who retained a belief in means. They intimidated them.
Watson wrote:
"Further, I was much surprised as well as mortified that they evinced so little concern about the unbrought "other sheep" which the Saviour said he must bring. They lay great stress on these words of the Saviour, but do not regard other things which he connected with the bringing them in as they ought to do. I heard but few prayers for the sending forth of laborers into his field; nor did I see much concern in any way about them." (page 181)
Watson says that he was both "surprised" and "mortified" to see so little concern about the lost. But, it really ought not to have been a surprise for it should have been evident to such a learned man as Watson to have foreseen what the opposition to missions, religious education, and evangelism, would eventually lead to. We who look back see clearly how such opposition led to a change in doctrine regarding means and perseverance.
It is to the credit of Watson that he felt mortified by the unconcern and apathy that his fellow Hardshells showed towards the lost, especially in foreign lands. Watson saw this unbecoming spirit begin to take over the newly formed denomination, and if he were alive today he would see how such a spirit has pervaded the denomination. A Christian who has no concern about sending the Gospel to the lost, that they might be saved, is a Christian who has a spirit that ought to be condemned.
Watson wrote:
"I felt inclined to ask these orthodox Christians, if they believed that any of the "other sheep" are now among the heathen nations? and if they were watching the providence of God in regard to them? Moreover, if they felt under any obligations to search them out; to pray unto the Lord to bring them in; and to encourage, aid and send out any who may feel called of the Lord to preach to them?"
How would today's Hardshells respond to such questions? If they searched their hearts, would they not have to confess that they live from day to day with little or no concern for the lost souls in heathen lands? Do they not feel no obligation towards them? Do they not think that it is God's responsibiility alone and not theirs? What is this but Antinomianism?
Further, Watson mentions encouraging, aiding, and sending out those who have been called to preach to those poor lost heathens. But, as we have already seen, today's Hardshells feel no duty or desire to do any of these things. Recall how I cited from Hardshell testimony in the Mt. Carmel Church trial in which a Hardshell said that he felt no duty to even give encouragement or one cent to help such a preacher to preach to the heathen.
Watson continued:
"I find that the great extravagance of many who have engaged in this work has had a very bad influence on these people, and probably prevented them in some instances from performing their duty toward the "other sheep" which may be in distant countries. And I really fear should any one profess a call of this kind, he would not receive the fellowship and assistance which he would be entitled to. Thus I fear they do not act as did those who heeded all the commandments of the Lord." (pages 181-82)
What is Watson saying? Is he not saying that the Hardshells, in opposing mission methods of others, went to an opposite extreme? He says their opposition to the "great extravagance" of some Mission Baptists led them to neglect their "duty" towards the elect who are lost in heathen darkness. He testifies of his fear that this Hardshell extremism would lead to the Hardshells doing nothing to help see that the Gospel was sent to the heathen. His fears, as history shows, was indeed what actually materialized. The Hardshells today have violated the commission of the Lord, and are a disobedient people, not doing what the Lord has commanded them today. Why do they think that they shall escape the judgment of God for this?
Watson continued:
"Who of us are...sinning in propagating Protestant heresies, or Old Baptist ultraisms. We can readily see the absurdities of Romanism, the errors of many Protestant sects, and avoid them, but we do not recognize, as heresies, those hurtful ultraisms which are eating, as doth a canker, upon our very vitals as a denomination-a denomination which very justly boasts of its antiquity, and of having never acknowledged any other rule of faith and practice but that of the Bible. But some of our brethren are interpreting many of its blessed truths in such a way as to lead off their hearers from the Old Baptist platform of principles." (page 300)
What Watson here says is what I have been saying throughout my writings against the Hardshells. If Watson were alive today, he would join Elder Fralick and me in writing against the errors of today's Hardshells. The modern Hardshell church has seen the cancer of "Old Baptist ultraisms" metastasize and reach its final stage. These ultraisms he labels as "heresies." He says that these new interpretations of Scripture, wherein means are denied, and duty to fulfill the Great Commission is set aside, etc., were leading the denomination away "from the Old Baptist platform of principles." This is exactly what brother Fralick and I have been also proclaiming.
Was Watson wrong when he says that these ultraisms of those who were calling themselves "Old" or "Primitive" Baptists was a departure from the historic teaching of their Old Baptist forefathers? What Hardshell can come forward today with the evidence to disprove his assertion? Have we not presented all kinds of evidence in my book and in my blogs that show that the Hardshell no means view is an innovation in doctrine, not held to by the ancestors of the Hardshells?
Watson continued:
"No wonder we have perversions, heresies, debates and divisions among us, from such a deceitful handling of the Word of God; a part carried far beyond its true import, and another portion suppressed just as may subserve their tenets or fancies." (page 319)
Notice again how Watson says that the no means, Spirit alone, view of regeneration, and the denial that the Great Commission is yet an obligation of the church, is the result not only of faulty interpretation of Scripture, but from a "deceitful handling of the Word of God." How accurate is this judgment! The hermeneutics of the Hardshells is so faulty. They feel no judgment for their handling of the word of God in the manner they do. They twist it, they pervert it, and feel no sense of wrong for doing it. They do not realize how great an evil it is to as they do. The Scriptures that teach against their peculiar beliefs they truly do suppress or else try to make them say what they obviously do not say. They come to the Scriptures with their "fancies," with their peculiar tenets and presuppositions and are guilty of eisegesis. I hopefully will have a couple chapters on "Hardshell Hermeneutics" and "Hardshell Amillenialism" which will demonstrate the errors of the Hardshells in how they interpret Scripture.
Watson continued:
"To show that the will of God is in His word, of His own will, says James, begat he us with the word of truth. The proof that His everlasting love is in it, is that with loving kindness He draws believers to Christ." (page 421)
This is the truth that was discarded by second and third generation Hardshells, and which had even begun in the latter days of Watson's life. They deny that the word of truth is God's instrument in begetting sinners to life. Today's Hardshells are suffering the consequences of such a departure from the Scriptures and the historic Baptist faith.
Monday, October 28, 2013
Watson on the Conditions of Salvation
As I wrote in my series "Conditional or Unconditional?" the Hardshells have greatly erred in denying that there are any conditions that sinners must do in order to be finally saved. (See chapters 119-122 here, here, here, and here) H. B. Taylor was a mighty opponent of Hardshellism and he wrote against the Hardshell idea that salvation was in every sense unconditional. I wrote an article on this titled "Taylor on Hardshellism" (see here) in which I cited these words of Taylor on this issue:
"Hardshells leave out, namely, their calling and their justification. They are called, Paul said, by the gospel and they are justified by faith or believing the gospel. So that the whole truth as to election is that all the elect will be called by the gospel and be justified by believing the gospel and be glorified by reason of the hope obtained through the gospel. Or take this passage in II Thes. 2:13-14: "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", Paul again tells the whole truth about election: There is eternal election, from the beginning; personal election, "you"; unconditional election, "God chose." But that is only half the truth. God's election was "unto salvation." This salvation was not unconditional, but was "through the sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth." This unconditional election was unto a conditional salvation to which the elect were called by the gospel. These unconditionally elected ones could only obtain the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ through a conditional salvation to which they were called by the gospel. Since Hardshellism preaches no gospel, no one has been called unto salvation through it. Since being called unto salvation by the gospel is necessary to obtaining salvation and Hardshellism has no gospel for the unsaved, no one was ever saved by Hardshellism. Since God's elect are all called unto salvation by the Gospel and the Hardshell elect are all saved without the gospel, Hardshell elect are not God's elect. Since all God's elect are saved "thru sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" and Hardshells are saved without the belief of the truth. Hardshells are not saved or not God's elect and Hardshellism is not the truth. Since God's unconditional election is unto a conditional salvation and Hardshell unconditional election is unto an unconditional salvation; Hardshell election is not the truth but a perversion of the truth and is not unto a salvation at all but unto damnation. Remember that God's unconditional election is unto a conditional salvation and when Hardshellism teaches an unconditional salvation the election they preach is unto damnation instead of salvation. An election which does not include the preaching of the Gospel as a condition of salvation is not God's election at all; for "it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe" (I Cor. 1:21). God's election included both the men and the means."
Taylor hits the mark when he points out the error of the Hardshells believing that because election is unconditional therefore salvation also must be. Of course, as I showed in my series, there is a sense in which salvation is unconditional and a sense in which it is conditional and I cited our Old Baptist forefathers on this issue. In this posting I wish to cite from Hardshell founding father Elder (Dr.) John M. Watson on this point, who, as will be seen, correctly understood this matter, and it would be a good thing if today's Hardshells heeded his instruction on this point. Most of today's Hardshells fail his "test" for being an "old Baptist."
Watson wrote:
"This doctrine does not stop here, but includes all ordinances, conditions, means, and modes of divine "workmanship." None of these are accidental or fortuitous as we may suppose, Reader, "Is not the Lord gone out before thee" in all these?"
According to "Teth" (the blog writer for the Hardshell web page theearstohear), to believe that salvation is by sovereign grace logically excludes any and all conditions of salvation. But, Watson rejects that idea, and so "Teth" and today's Hardshells who follow Teth's thinking do not hold to Old Baptist doctrine and fails Dr. Watson's "Old Baptist Test" for being truly old Baptist. Watson says that the doctrine of sovereign grace and unconditional election "includes all ordinances, conditions, and modes."
Watson continued:
"According to our text, God had ordained the deliverance of Israel, and the means, by which that deliverance should be wrought, and one was not more certain than the other. God was as much in the means of that deliverance as He was in the ordination of it; and so in other things." (page 354)
This is Old Baptist doctrine and those Hardshells today who do not agree with Watson show that they have departed from the true Old Baptist faith. God not only ordained and predestined the end, or salvation, but the means to accomplish it, and Watson shows that the preaching of the Gospel is one of those God ordained means, and that faith, repentance, and perseverance are also the ordained means of salvation.
Watson wrote:
"Some suppose that as this doctrine includes conditions or means, the performance of, or compliance with, them determines the acts of the Lord, making His acts dependent on them of the creature; and as the subject is sometimes discussed in such a manner as to embarrass those who are otherwise sound in the faith, it may not be amiss to give scriptural exposition of conditions and means."
What Watson is opposing in these words is the Arminian or Pelagian idea of what it means for salvation to be conditional. He does not believe that salvation is conditional in the sense in which the conditions are done by a person's own free will and innate ability so as to make God's act of saving to be dependent on those conditions. But, he does not throw out the baby with the bathwater and deny that salvation is in any sense conditional.
He continues:
"The reader should be reminded that there is a difference between the conditions of the first covenant under the law, and those of the Gospel under the second, or new covenant, Heb. 8: 9, 19...The condition, do and live was performed by Christ, and the benefits of it are enjoyed by faith, and by our compliance with it; for by nature we are morally unable to do so." (page 355)
Notice how Watson, like the Old Baptists I cited in my series on this topic, believes that salvation is not conditional in the sense in which things were conditional under the law. But, he does not deny that there are nevertheless conditions of salvation under the new covenant. He does not deny that Christ performed the conditions of "do and live" and that it is upon this basis that salvation, and the conditions of it, are made certain for the elect. Watson says that "the benefits" of the salvation procured by Christ "are enjoyed by faith, and by our compliance with" the conditions of the new covenant. It is also interesting how Watson refers to man's natural inability as being "moral" as opposed to being physical, which I elaborated upon in my series "Hardshell Pelagianism."
Watson continued:
"Burroughs well says: "He doth not only command us and leave us to our created strength to obey the command; but He furnisheth us with His own spirit and grace to obey the command."
What Burroughs says, and what Watson endorses, is what the first Hardshells taught, as anyone who reads the Hardshell writings in the 1830s. They believed that the fact that faith and repentance were conditions of salvation did not make salvation to depend upon themselves, for they believed that the meeting of these conditions was certain due to the working of God. The Hardshells reason that to make salvation conditioned upon faith and repentance, and upon perseverance, is to make salvation to depend upon believers themselves, and in this way makes their salvation uncertain. But, this is illogical. What God commands, in the case of the elect, he insures compliance by the giving of a will and power to do. This is what Paul meant when he said "for it is God who works in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." (Phil. 2: 13)
Watson next cites these words from John Owen, the great Calvinist theologian:
"Owen also has a few sentences on the subject much in point, which I will quote: "It is as easy for a man by his own strength to fulfil the whole law as to repent and believe the promises of the Gospel. This then is one main difference of those two covenants, that the Lord did in the old require the conditions, now in the new He also affects it in all the federates, to whom the covenant is extended."
The Lord did not determine to save his elect apart from faith and repentance, but he did determine to give faith and repentance.
Next Watson cites Perkins:
"William Perkins writes equally as clear on this subject as follows: "In the covenant of grace, two things must be considered, the substance thereof, and the condition. The substance of the covenant is, that righteousness and life everlasting is given to God's people by Christ. The condition is, that we for our part are by faith to receive the aforesaid benefits; and this condition is by grace as well as the substance." And no less in point is the following: "He freely provideth and offereth to sinners a Mediator and life and salvation by Him, and requiring faith as the condition to interest them in Him, nourisheth and giveth his Holy Spirit to all his elect to work in them that faith with all other saving graces, and to enable them to all holy obedience of the truth of their faith."
What Perkins says is what is the Old Baptist position. It is what those who wrote the 1689 London Confession believed. It is what John Gill believed. It is what the first Particular Baptists in America believed. It is what the first Hardshells believed. These Old Baptists believed that there was a difference in the kind of conditions Christ met for our salvation and the kind of conditions we meet for our salvation. The conditions Christ fulfilled represent the substance, what is the grounds for meeting the covenant conditions by believers. When Hardshells today argue that the making of faith and repentance, and perseverance, into conditions of salvation undermine God's salvation or makes it to depend upon believers rather than upon Christ, they are simply arguing falsely. Their problem is in their illogical reasoning and not because the Scriptures are not plain. Where can they show us a verse that says that faith, repentance, and perseverance are not necessary for being saved? Rather than citing such verses of Scripture, do they not try to make arguments from reason?
Watson wrote:
"So that the subject of the conditions of the Gospel, which have been confounded by many with those of the law and have given rise to so many Arminian errors, admits of a very satisfactory exposition. The Lord did not under the first covenant, promise to give grace to the fallen sinner to enable him to keep the whole law, that being the condition of justification and life; but under the new covenant it was both promised and given." (page 356)
These comments are so clear that they need no further comment. Hardshells today need to read them, study them, and see that they are teaching something different than what their Old Baptists forefathers taught.
Watson wrote:
"Means admit of a similar exposition. The Lord has gone out before us also in them. He not only gave us His Gospel, but ordained means by which it would become savingly efficacious to all His chosen. Isa. 55: 11...So we may say of Gospel means, without the power of God they never prevail over the hearts of sinners; but means in His power, whether great or small, in our estimation, are always efficacious. He derives no strength or advantage from them as adjuncts to His work. He employs them because it is His will to do so. Eph. 1: 11." (page 357)
In reading these words by one of the great founding fathers of Hardshellism, one wonders how Elder Lemuel Potter could say, in his 1887 debate, that Watson did not believe in Gospel means salvation. In fact, why have today's Hardshells not come forward and shown how the views of Watson on this subject were not the views of the first generation of "Primitive Baptists"? In this blog I have cited from nearly all of the first generation leaders of the newly formed denomination and shown how they all agreed with Watson. When did the Hardshells change? Also, how can they claim to have existed unchanged in doctrine since the days of the Apostles? Further, if holding to the Gospel means position makes a church illegitimate, and the Hardshells of today have descended from churches that believed in Gospel means, then how can they claim to be legitimate today?
Watson wrote:
"Paul, however, does not affirm, like some of our modern innovators, that means or instrumentalities are not employed by the Lord in the divine plan of salvation; for he asks: "How shall they hear without a preacher?" Rom. 10: 14. Paul, it is true, preached the Gospel in word only, while the election of God was manifested in the power and assurance of the Holy Spirit imparted to his words; when received by the elect which apart from that power and assurance would have been received in word only, as it really was by others and embraced in the divine election. I Thess. 1: 4. After all it may be truthfully said, that Paul's preaching even in word only was of God, was according to His grace, calling and qualifying, but we may as truthfully say, that Paul was the instrument called, qualified, and sent. I Cor. 15: 10." (pages 399-400)
Again, how could men like Potter say that Watson denied means in the eternal salvation of the elect? What Watson is here teaching was not new, but was the historic doctrine of Watson's Baptist forefathers. Let the Hardshells of today come forward and show how the Baptists prior to Watson taught the no means view. Of course, the fact that they don't come forward with the evidence, after years of calling upon them to do so, is proof that their no means view is a new doctrine and that they cannot show a line of churches back to the Apostles who held to their no means hybrid doctrine. Notice that Watson calls those who were beginning to deny the means doctrine "modern innovators." Was he right or wrong? Would he not know? Why are today's Hardshells deluded on this point? Why do they think that their anti means position is the historic teaching of the Baptists?
Watson wrote:
"We are commanded to believe, and when and how did we comply? When the Lord gave faith, so that we believe according to the grace and mighty power of God." (page 414)
Let it be understood that Watson is talking about evangelical faith. Watson knew nothing about the modern definitions of faith that neo Hardshells have invented to deal with all those passages that affirm that faith is the means of salvation. He also knew nothing about the Hardshell apologetic argumentation that falls under the heading of "time salvation." No where in Watson's book does he ever argue for a time salvation as a way to handle all that passages that make hearing and believing the Gospel a means of salvation.
Watson wrote:
"Thus we plainly perceive in strong scriptural lights that we perform these great duties in the strength of divine grace, and that we are entirely dependent on God for ability to keep His commandments, and that He is entitled to all the praise and glory of our works; and that after all we are but unprofitable servants." (ibid)
Again, what Watson here states as truth, and as the Old Baptist view, is not what today's Hardshells teach. Were Watson here today he would be attacked, would be called an "Arminian," and would be accused of making salvation to depend upon believers rather than upon God. Further, Watson was no Pelagian. He did not believe that the commands to believe, repent, and to persevere implied existing ability to do those things, but that the doing of those things were a result of God's predestination and his power working in the hearts and lives of his people.
Watson wrote:
"According to these truths our good works are as much of God as is our conversion; other truths may be adduced in proof of this view of the subject. God calls the sinner with a holy calling, including life, repentance, and faith; He creates the inner man in righteousness and true holiness; He manifests Himself to believers as He does not unto the world; He communes with them over the mercy seat in prayer, in baptism, in the Lord's supper, in His word, in secret, and in the assembly of saints; He carries on the work of grace which He has begun; He keeps them by His power through faith; He makes Christ, wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption. The way, the truth, and the life to them...We may as truly say that we work because God first works in us both to will and to do, as to say we love him because He first love us. Well may Paul say in relating the great works which he performed: "Not I, but the grace of God which moved me, directed me, and sustained me."" (pages 414-15)
Today's Hardshells, in reading these words of Watson, would call him an "Absoluter." But, again, it must be recognized that Watson was stating the historic view of his Baptist forefathers and the view of his fellow first generation Hardshells.
Watson wrote:
"Nor alas! can we come to His word feelingly, understandingly and practically, without it were given unto us of the Father, who has sent the Holy Spirit not only to show us the things of Christ, but also to demonstrate Gospel truths in power and much assurance. I Cor. 2: 4; I Thess. 1: 4.
Nor will we profit by exhortations, admonitions, warnings, nor threatenings only as they are made effectual by the power of the Holy Spirit. They operate effectually only in the way of grace. When we consider what it cost to make them efficacious we may learn the doctrine of their efficiency. It took the sacrifice of Christ, His death, His resurrection and ascension to procure their efficiency through the Holy Spirit, otherwise they would have been only a savor of death unto death. No one would have heeded them." (page 415)
These words answer the reasoning of men like "Teth" who wrote against perseverance, and whose argumentation we have rebutted. Teth would say that Watson, by making faith, repentance, and perseverance necessary conditions for salvation, was not making all to depend upon the atonement. But, Watson, just as I have done, answers by saying that it was the atonement that guaranteed that all the elect would be given all things necessary for their salvation. Christ died in order to give his chosen people life. The life they receive is a gift and guaranteed by the atonement. But, what is true of life is also true of faith, repentance, and perseverance. Oh that today's Hardshells would repent of their error and come back to the real Old Baptist faith.
"Hardshells leave out, namely, their calling and their justification. They are called, Paul said, by the gospel and they are justified by faith or believing the gospel. So that the whole truth as to election is that all the elect will be called by the gospel and be justified by believing the gospel and be glorified by reason of the hope obtained through the gospel. Or take this passage in II Thes. 2:13-14: "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", Paul again tells the whole truth about election: There is eternal election, from the beginning; personal election, "you"; unconditional election, "God chose." But that is only half the truth. God's election was "unto salvation." This salvation was not unconditional, but was "through the sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth." This unconditional election was unto a conditional salvation to which the elect were called by the gospel. These unconditionally elected ones could only obtain the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ through a conditional salvation to which they were called by the gospel. Since Hardshellism preaches no gospel, no one has been called unto salvation through it. Since being called unto salvation by the gospel is necessary to obtaining salvation and Hardshellism has no gospel for the unsaved, no one was ever saved by Hardshellism. Since God's elect are all called unto salvation by the Gospel and the Hardshell elect are all saved without the gospel, Hardshell elect are not God's elect. Since all God's elect are saved "thru sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" and Hardshells are saved without the belief of the truth. Hardshells are not saved or not God's elect and Hardshellism is not the truth. Since God's unconditional election is unto a conditional salvation and Hardshell unconditional election is unto an unconditional salvation; Hardshell election is not the truth but a perversion of the truth and is not unto a salvation at all but unto damnation. Remember that God's unconditional election is unto a conditional salvation and when Hardshellism teaches an unconditional salvation the election they preach is unto damnation instead of salvation. An election which does not include the preaching of the Gospel as a condition of salvation is not God's election at all; for "it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe" (I Cor. 1:21). God's election included both the men and the means."
Taylor hits the mark when he points out the error of the Hardshells believing that because election is unconditional therefore salvation also must be. Of course, as I showed in my series, there is a sense in which salvation is unconditional and a sense in which it is conditional and I cited our Old Baptist forefathers on this issue. In this posting I wish to cite from Hardshell founding father Elder (Dr.) John M. Watson on this point, who, as will be seen, correctly understood this matter, and it would be a good thing if today's Hardshells heeded his instruction on this point. Most of today's Hardshells fail his "test" for being an "old Baptist."
Watson wrote:
"This doctrine does not stop here, but includes all ordinances, conditions, means, and modes of divine "workmanship." None of these are accidental or fortuitous as we may suppose, Reader, "Is not the Lord gone out before thee" in all these?"
According to "Teth" (the blog writer for the Hardshell web page theearstohear), to believe that salvation is by sovereign grace logically excludes any and all conditions of salvation. But, Watson rejects that idea, and so "Teth" and today's Hardshells who follow Teth's thinking do not hold to Old Baptist doctrine and fails Dr. Watson's "Old Baptist Test" for being truly old Baptist. Watson says that the doctrine of sovereign grace and unconditional election "includes all ordinances, conditions, and modes."
Watson continued:
"According to our text, God had ordained the deliverance of Israel, and the means, by which that deliverance should be wrought, and one was not more certain than the other. God was as much in the means of that deliverance as He was in the ordination of it; and so in other things." (page 354)
This is Old Baptist doctrine and those Hardshells today who do not agree with Watson show that they have departed from the true Old Baptist faith. God not only ordained and predestined the end, or salvation, but the means to accomplish it, and Watson shows that the preaching of the Gospel is one of those God ordained means, and that faith, repentance, and perseverance are also the ordained means of salvation.
Watson wrote:
"Some suppose that as this doctrine includes conditions or means, the performance of, or compliance with, them determines the acts of the Lord, making His acts dependent on them of the creature; and as the subject is sometimes discussed in such a manner as to embarrass those who are otherwise sound in the faith, it may not be amiss to give scriptural exposition of conditions and means."
What Watson is opposing in these words is the Arminian or Pelagian idea of what it means for salvation to be conditional. He does not believe that salvation is conditional in the sense in which the conditions are done by a person's own free will and innate ability so as to make God's act of saving to be dependent on those conditions. But, he does not throw out the baby with the bathwater and deny that salvation is in any sense conditional.
He continues:
"The reader should be reminded that there is a difference between the conditions of the first covenant under the law, and those of the Gospel under the second, or new covenant, Heb. 8: 9, 19...The condition, do and live was performed by Christ, and the benefits of it are enjoyed by faith, and by our compliance with it; for by nature we are morally unable to do so." (page 355)
Notice how Watson, like the Old Baptists I cited in my series on this topic, believes that salvation is not conditional in the sense in which things were conditional under the law. But, he does not deny that there are nevertheless conditions of salvation under the new covenant. He does not deny that Christ performed the conditions of "do and live" and that it is upon this basis that salvation, and the conditions of it, are made certain for the elect. Watson says that "the benefits" of the salvation procured by Christ "are enjoyed by faith, and by our compliance with" the conditions of the new covenant. It is also interesting how Watson refers to man's natural inability as being "moral" as opposed to being physical, which I elaborated upon in my series "Hardshell Pelagianism."
Watson continued:
"Burroughs well says: "He doth not only command us and leave us to our created strength to obey the command; but He furnisheth us with His own spirit and grace to obey the command."
What Burroughs says, and what Watson endorses, is what the first Hardshells taught, as anyone who reads the Hardshell writings in the 1830s. They believed that the fact that faith and repentance were conditions of salvation did not make salvation to depend upon themselves, for they believed that the meeting of these conditions was certain due to the working of God. The Hardshells reason that to make salvation conditioned upon faith and repentance, and upon perseverance, is to make salvation to depend upon believers themselves, and in this way makes their salvation uncertain. But, this is illogical. What God commands, in the case of the elect, he insures compliance by the giving of a will and power to do. This is what Paul meant when he said "for it is God who works in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." (Phil. 2: 13)
Watson next cites these words from John Owen, the great Calvinist theologian:
"Owen also has a few sentences on the subject much in point, which I will quote: "It is as easy for a man by his own strength to fulfil the whole law as to repent and believe the promises of the Gospel. This then is one main difference of those two covenants, that the Lord did in the old require the conditions, now in the new He also affects it in all the federates, to whom the covenant is extended."
The Lord did not determine to save his elect apart from faith and repentance, but he did determine to give faith and repentance.
Next Watson cites Perkins:
"William Perkins writes equally as clear on this subject as follows: "In the covenant of grace, two things must be considered, the substance thereof, and the condition. The substance of the covenant is, that righteousness and life everlasting is given to God's people by Christ. The condition is, that we for our part are by faith to receive the aforesaid benefits; and this condition is by grace as well as the substance." And no less in point is the following: "He freely provideth and offereth to sinners a Mediator and life and salvation by Him, and requiring faith as the condition to interest them in Him, nourisheth and giveth his Holy Spirit to all his elect to work in them that faith with all other saving graces, and to enable them to all holy obedience of the truth of their faith."
What Perkins says is what is the Old Baptist position. It is what those who wrote the 1689 London Confession believed. It is what John Gill believed. It is what the first Particular Baptists in America believed. It is what the first Hardshells believed. These Old Baptists believed that there was a difference in the kind of conditions Christ met for our salvation and the kind of conditions we meet for our salvation. The conditions Christ fulfilled represent the substance, what is the grounds for meeting the covenant conditions by believers. When Hardshells today argue that the making of faith and repentance, and perseverance, into conditions of salvation undermine God's salvation or makes it to depend upon believers rather than upon Christ, they are simply arguing falsely. Their problem is in their illogical reasoning and not because the Scriptures are not plain. Where can they show us a verse that says that faith, repentance, and perseverance are not necessary for being saved? Rather than citing such verses of Scripture, do they not try to make arguments from reason?
Watson wrote:
"So that the subject of the conditions of the Gospel, which have been confounded by many with those of the law and have given rise to so many Arminian errors, admits of a very satisfactory exposition. The Lord did not under the first covenant, promise to give grace to the fallen sinner to enable him to keep the whole law, that being the condition of justification and life; but under the new covenant it was both promised and given." (page 356)
These comments are so clear that they need no further comment. Hardshells today need to read them, study them, and see that they are teaching something different than what their Old Baptists forefathers taught.
Watson wrote:
"Means admit of a similar exposition. The Lord has gone out before us also in them. He not only gave us His Gospel, but ordained means by which it would become savingly efficacious to all His chosen. Isa. 55: 11...So we may say of Gospel means, without the power of God they never prevail over the hearts of sinners; but means in His power, whether great or small, in our estimation, are always efficacious. He derives no strength or advantage from them as adjuncts to His work. He employs them because it is His will to do so. Eph. 1: 11." (page 357)
In reading these words by one of the great founding fathers of Hardshellism, one wonders how Elder Lemuel Potter could say, in his 1887 debate, that Watson did not believe in Gospel means salvation. In fact, why have today's Hardshells not come forward and shown how the views of Watson on this subject were not the views of the first generation of "Primitive Baptists"? In this blog I have cited from nearly all of the first generation leaders of the newly formed denomination and shown how they all agreed with Watson. When did the Hardshells change? Also, how can they claim to have existed unchanged in doctrine since the days of the Apostles? Further, if holding to the Gospel means position makes a church illegitimate, and the Hardshells of today have descended from churches that believed in Gospel means, then how can they claim to be legitimate today?
Watson wrote:
"Paul, however, does not affirm, like some of our modern innovators, that means or instrumentalities are not employed by the Lord in the divine plan of salvation; for he asks: "How shall they hear without a preacher?" Rom. 10: 14. Paul, it is true, preached the Gospel in word only, while the election of God was manifested in the power and assurance of the Holy Spirit imparted to his words; when received by the elect which apart from that power and assurance would have been received in word only, as it really was by others and embraced in the divine election. I Thess. 1: 4. After all it may be truthfully said, that Paul's preaching even in word only was of God, was according to His grace, calling and qualifying, but we may as truthfully say, that Paul was the instrument called, qualified, and sent. I Cor. 15: 10." (pages 399-400)
Again, how could men like Potter say that Watson denied means in the eternal salvation of the elect? What Watson is here teaching was not new, but was the historic doctrine of Watson's Baptist forefathers. Let the Hardshells of today come forward and show how the Baptists prior to Watson taught the no means view. Of course, the fact that they don't come forward with the evidence, after years of calling upon them to do so, is proof that their no means view is a new doctrine and that they cannot show a line of churches back to the Apostles who held to their no means hybrid doctrine. Notice that Watson calls those who were beginning to deny the means doctrine "modern innovators." Was he right or wrong? Would he not know? Why are today's Hardshells deluded on this point? Why do they think that their anti means position is the historic teaching of the Baptists?
Watson wrote:
"We are commanded to believe, and when and how did we comply? When the Lord gave faith, so that we believe according to the grace and mighty power of God." (page 414)
Let it be understood that Watson is talking about evangelical faith. Watson knew nothing about the modern definitions of faith that neo Hardshells have invented to deal with all those passages that affirm that faith is the means of salvation. He also knew nothing about the Hardshell apologetic argumentation that falls under the heading of "time salvation." No where in Watson's book does he ever argue for a time salvation as a way to handle all that passages that make hearing and believing the Gospel a means of salvation.
Watson wrote:
"Thus we plainly perceive in strong scriptural lights that we perform these great duties in the strength of divine grace, and that we are entirely dependent on God for ability to keep His commandments, and that He is entitled to all the praise and glory of our works; and that after all we are but unprofitable servants." (ibid)
Again, what Watson here states as truth, and as the Old Baptist view, is not what today's Hardshells teach. Were Watson here today he would be attacked, would be called an "Arminian," and would be accused of making salvation to depend upon believers rather than upon God. Further, Watson was no Pelagian. He did not believe that the commands to believe, repent, and to persevere implied existing ability to do those things, but that the doing of those things were a result of God's predestination and his power working in the hearts and lives of his people.
Watson wrote:
"According to these truths our good works are as much of God as is our conversion; other truths may be adduced in proof of this view of the subject. God calls the sinner with a holy calling, including life, repentance, and faith; He creates the inner man in righteousness and true holiness; He manifests Himself to believers as He does not unto the world; He communes with them over the mercy seat in prayer, in baptism, in the Lord's supper, in His word, in secret, and in the assembly of saints; He carries on the work of grace which He has begun; He keeps them by His power through faith; He makes Christ, wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption. The way, the truth, and the life to them...We may as truly say that we work because God first works in us both to will and to do, as to say we love him because He first love us. Well may Paul say in relating the great works which he performed: "Not I, but the grace of God which moved me, directed me, and sustained me."" (pages 414-15)
Today's Hardshells, in reading these words of Watson, would call him an "Absoluter." But, again, it must be recognized that Watson was stating the historic view of his Baptist forefathers and the view of his fellow first generation Hardshells.
Watson wrote:
"Nor alas! can we come to His word feelingly, understandingly and practically, without it were given unto us of the Father, who has sent the Holy Spirit not only to show us the things of Christ, but also to demonstrate Gospel truths in power and much assurance. I Cor. 2: 4; I Thess. 1: 4.
Nor will we profit by exhortations, admonitions, warnings, nor threatenings only as they are made effectual by the power of the Holy Spirit. They operate effectually only in the way of grace. When we consider what it cost to make them efficacious we may learn the doctrine of their efficiency. It took the sacrifice of Christ, His death, His resurrection and ascension to procure their efficiency through the Holy Spirit, otherwise they would have been only a savor of death unto death. No one would have heeded them." (page 415)
These words answer the reasoning of men like "Teth" who wrote against perseverance, and whose argumentation we have rebutted. Teth would say that Watson, by making faith, repentance, and perseverance necessary conditions for salvation, was not making all to depend upon the atonement. But, Watson, just as I have done, answers by saying that it was the atonement that guaranteed that all the elect would be given all things necessary for their salvation. Christ died in order to give his chosen people life. The life they receive is a gift and guaranteed by the atonement. But, what is true of life is also true of faith, repentance, and perseverance. Oh that today's Hardshells would repent of their error and come back to the real Old Baptist faith.
Sunday, October 27, 2013
More on Solomon's Case
Recently brother Fralick and I wrote in response to a Hardshell who denied the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. This Hardshell used the case of Solomon to deny the old doctrine (see here). Brother Kevin left some comments on the blog posting and became frustrated with the Hardshell's stubborn refusal to answer his questions and deal with his arguments. In this posting I would like to make some observations on that short discussion.
Brother Kevin asked the Hardshell why he denied the doctrine of the saint's perseverance when this was the acknowledged view of his forefathers. This Hardshell did what my dad has also often done when confronted with the fact that today's Hardshells do not believe what their forefathers believed. He says that he denies perseverance because the Bible does not teach it. What he does essentially is to admit that his doctrine is novel, that it is not in accordance with past Old Baptist doctrine, especially as expressed in historically accepted creeds. Of course, we are willing to argue from the Bible alone, but we want it understood that such Hardshells are admitting that their views are not what has traditionally been taught by Old Baptists. Therefore, their self styled name of "Primitive" Baptist is a lie, for such a name implies that they believe what has been regularly and continuously believed by the Baptist church of Christ since the days of the apostles. Since this Hardshell is admitting that his views are not the historic teaching of the Old Baptists, he ought rather to call himself a "Reformed" Baptist, which would convey the message that he is restoring a belief that has been lost. Of course, such a view destroys their idea that a present day church, in order to be a legitimate church, must have a pure line of churches who believe pure doctrine back to the apostles. But, if the church lost the truth on the doctrine of perseverance, and now has been restored, it still cannot be a legitimate church because its mother churches did not deny the doctrine of perseverance.
The first Hardshells did initially adopt the name "reformed," but later discarded it in favor of "old school" and "primitive." In doing this they claimed that they were the ones holding to historic Baptist teaching, in keeping with both the London and Philadelphia Confessions. All the oldest Hardshell churches accepted these confessions. The first Campbellites also called themselves "reformers" because they thought that they were restoring truth that had been lost. So, the fact that the Hardshell whose writing we have been critiquing calls himself a "Primitive Baptist" puts the burden on him to show that his views on perseverance are the traditional and historic teaching of his forefathers, a thing he cannot do. He ought therefore to discard the title.
The Hardshell who goes by the name of "TETH" did not answer Kevin's question about the Fulton Confession endorsing the London Confession and its section on the perseverance of the saints, which was endorsed without addition. Who is more "Primitve" on the subject of perseverance, Teth or Kevin? This writer wanted Kevin to read another posting of his, but he ought to read what we have written on perseverance and on how salvation is both conditional and unconditional.
Teth cited these words by Kevin:
"The righteous shall hold on his way" (Job 17:9), yet you're trying to say that Solomon was saved into heaven though he didn't hold on his way.”
Then Teth followed with these comments:
"Are you suggesting that if Solomon did not “hold on his way” that he would not be eternally saved? To do so is to place an obligation upon Solomon that the bible says was laid upon the Lord Jesus Christ. (Is 53:5)"
It is not Kevin who suggested that those who do not persevere, who do not hold on to their way, will not be saved, but is what the Scriptures positively assert in many places. For instance, Jesus said "he that endureth to the end shall be saved." (Matt. 10: 22 & 24: 13) Now, this Hardshell can argue till he is blue in the face that this text only concerns a "time salvation," but let him cite one Baptist, or for that matter, any theologian, prior to the rise of the Hardshells in the 19th century, who promoted such an interpretation of the passage. The only other denomination to assert such an interpretation are the Universalists, who, as might be expected, would not want to make it a condition for eternal salvation. No one who comes to the passage without bias would for a minute think that a mere temporal deliverance was in the mind of Jesus. Further, by the "end" is clearly intended to mean the end of one's life, and therefore the salvation that comes after enduring to the end cannot be a salvation in this life. Had Teth been present when Christ uttered these words, he would have responded to Jesus just as he did to Kevin and say - "are you suggesting, Jesus, that if one does not endure he would not be eternally saved?"
The argument that Teth makes on the Job passage is an argument based upon an illogical conclusion, and not one based upon Scritpure. Why does Teth not simply cite a passage that denies that one must endure to the end to be saved? He thinks that to teach that perseverance is necessary for being eternally saved would logically lead to the conclusion that Isaiah 53: 5 is false. But, he ought to quit relying on his logical reasonings and accept the plain teachings of Scripture. The truth of the matter is this; the atonement of Christ is what has purchased faith, repentance, and perseverance for the elect. This was affirmed by Paul when he wrote:
"He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?" (Rom. 8: 32)
Does Teth not agree with his Hardshell brethren when they say that "faith" is a gift of God that was made certain for the elect by the atonement? If he can believe that faith is a gift purchased by Christ for his elect, why can he not believe that perseverance is also a purchased gift?
However, the logic of Teth would force him to affirm that not only is perseverance not necessary for being eternally saved, but neither is faith, repentance, confession of Christ, and following Christ. To insist that faith and repentance are necessary for eternal salvation, by Teth's logic, would "place an obligation upon" sinners "that the bible says was laid upon the Lord Jesus Christ." Teth's position is that there is no obligation upon sinners to do anything to be eternally saved, for this would mean that Christ's atonement was not the sole reason for being saved. So, men do not have to believe, nor repent, to be saved. But, in this, he is against what is so plainly taught in Scripture.
Further, Teth did not prove that Solomon did not "hold on his way." It is not enough to show that he sinned, for no believer in perseverance affirms that to persevere means the same as not sinning. What perseverance means is that those who sin will be successfully corrected by God and brought to repentance. In fact, it was Solomon himself who wrote - "For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth." (Pro. 3: 12) Paul cites these words in Hebrews 12: 6. Consider also that the text does not say simply that the Lord tries to correct his children, but that he actually does it. Does Teth believe that God fails in his work of correction? Does he believe that God failed to correct Solomon? Obviously he does.
Teth again cited Kevin, who said:
"We learn as well that Christ achieved reconciliation for those who "continue in the faith" (Col. 1:20-23)"
To this Teth replied:
"Indeed if our “continuing in the faith” is a condition of eternal salvation, then Christ did not meet all of the conditions and salvation is not by sovereign grace."
What is this but a blatant denial of what the text says? Teth's opposition is not to anything Kevin has said, but to what the Apostle Paul said. Again, Teth argues against what the text says, not by exegeting the text, or citing other texts that might contradict or throw light on the text, but by his inability to see how perseverance does not contradict sovereign grace soteriology. Teth did not go to the text and try to show how the text does not teach that continuing in the faith was necessary for being eternally saved. He certainly cannot make this passage to deal with a mere temporal salvation. Paul is talking about that reconciliation that has come to the elect by the death of Christ and says that the Colossians are indeed reconciled by Christ's atonement "if you continue in the faith grounded and settled," and if you "be not moved away from the hope of the gospel."
Teth again cited Kevin, who said:
"...we are the house of Christ "if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end" (Heb. 3:6).”
To this Teth replied:
"The sense in which these things are intended is in the here and now."
This is scholarly exegesis? We are to just take Teth's interpretation as if it were inspired? Being made a partaker of Christ does not relate to being eternally saved? One does not have to be made a partaker of Christ to be saved? One does not have to be a member of the house of Christ to be saved? With this kind of Bible teaching, it is no wonder that only a cult few take Hardshell teachers seriously.
Teth then asks - "Is sin a turning away from God?"
No, sin is not a turning away from God, at least not in the sense in which the phrase turning away from God is used in Scripture. Certainly God's people transgress the laws of God. Certainly the children of God are sometimes disobedient to their heavenly Father. But, these sins are not total apostasies, a total giving up of faith and trust in God and his salvation. In this sense, God's born again people "cannot sin." (I John 3: 9; 5: 18)
Kevin also cited the words of the prophet who wrote:
"And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me." (Jer. 32: 40)
To this Scripture Teth wrote in reply:
"To accommodate the reality of remaining sin is to undermine what you imply is meant by “shall not depart.” So we see that this passage is in reference to the certainty of their standing before God as a result of the intercessory work of Christ, who most certainly DID NOT DEPART and whose righteousness is THEIR righteousness through imputation."
It is good that Teth sees that the promise that someone "shall not depart from me" is a result of the atonement. What he cannot accept however is the idea that it is the elect who are assured of persevering. He thinks that the one who is under consideration is Christ. He is the one who will not depart. But, this is poor Bible interpretation. The use of the plural pronouns "them" and "they" show that it is not Christ who "shall not depart" as a result of the atonement and covenant, but it is the ones in whose hearts God puts his fear.
Further, it is necessary to again point out the error of Teth arguing that the fact that the saints sin proves that they are not persevering. That is not what perseverance involves. Perseverence involves the idea that the saints will not be overcome by their sins, but will eventually overcome them, by regularly confessing their sins and turning from them.
In my next posting I will show how men such as Teth ought to read what Elder Watson said about salvation being both conditional and unconditional, and how he corrects the illogical reasonings of men like Teth.
Brother Kevin asked the Hardshell why he denied the doctrine of the saint's perseverance when this was the acknowledged view of his forefathers. This Hardshell did what my dad has also often done when confronted with the fact that today's Hardshells do not believe what their forefathers believed. He says that he denies perseverance because the Bible does not teach it. What he does essentially is to admit that his doctrine is novel, that it is not in accordance with past Old Baptist doctrine, especially as expressed in historically accepted creeds. Of course, we are willing to argue from the Bible alone, but we want it understood that such Hardshells are admitting that their views are not what has traditionally been taught by Old Baptists. Therefore, their self styled name of "Primitive" Baptist is a lie, for such a name implies that they believe what has been regularly and continuously believed by the Baptist church of Christ since the days of the apostles. Since this Hardshell is admitting that his views are not the historic teaching of the Old Baptists, he ought rather to call himself a "Reformed" Baptist, which would convey the message that he is restoring a belief that has been lost. Of course, such a view destroys their idea that a present day church, in order to be a legitimate church, must have a pure line of churches who believe pure doctrine back to the apostles. But, if the church lost the truth on the doctrine of perseverance, and now has been restored, it still cannot be a legitimate church because its mother churches did not deny the doctrine of perseverance.
The first Hardshells did initially adopt the name "reformed," but later discarded it in favor of "old school" and "primitive." In doing this they claimed that they were the ones holding to historic Baptist teaching, in keeping with both the London and Philadelphia Confessions. All the oldest Hardshell churches accepted these confessions. The first Campbellites also called themselves "reformers" because they thought that they were restoring truth that had been lost. So, the fact that the Hardshell whose writing we have been critiquing calls himself a "Primitive Baptist" puts the burden on him to show that his views on perseverance are the traditional and historic teaching of his forefathers, a thing he cannot do. He ought therefore to discard the title.
The Hardshell who goes by the name of "TETH" did not answer Kevin's question about the Fulton Confession endorsing the London Confession and its section on the perseverance of the saints, which was endorsed without addition. Who is more "Primitve" on the subject of perseverance, Teth or Kevin? This writer wanted Kevin to read another posting of his, but he ought to read what we have written on perseverance and on how salvation is both conditional and unconditional.
Teth cited these words by Kevin:
"The righteous shall hold on his way" (Job 17:9), yet you're trying to say that Solomon was saved into heaven though he didn't hold on his way.”
Then Teth followed with these comments:
"Are you suggesting that if Solomon did not “hold on his way” that he would not be eternally saved? To do so is to place an obligation upon Solomon that the bible says was laid upon the Lord Jesus Christ. (Is 53:5)"
It is not Kevin who suggested that those who do not persevere, who do not hold on to their way, will not be saved, but is what the Scriptures positively assert in many places. For instance, Jesus said "he that endureth to the end shall be saved." (Matt. 10: 22 & 24: 13) Now, this Hardshell can argue till he is blue in the face that this text only concerns a "time salvation," but let him cite one Baptist, or for that matter, any theologian, prior to the rise of the Hardshells in the 19th century, who promoted such an interpretation of the passage. The only other denomination to assert such an interpretation are the Universalists, who, as might be expected, would not want to make it a condition for eternal salvation. No one who comes to the passage without bias would for a minute think that a mere temporal deliverance was in the mind of Jesus. Further, by the "end" is clearly intended to mean the end of one's life, and therefore the salvation that comes after enduring to the end cannot be a salvation in this life. Had Teth been present when Christ uttered these words, he would have responded to Jesus just as he did to Kevin and say - "are you suggesting, Jesus, that if one does not endure he would not be eternally saved?"
The argument that Teth makes on the Job passage is an argument based upon an illogical conclusion, and not one based upon Scritpure. Why does Teth not simply cite a passage that denies that one must endure to the end to be saved? He thinks that to teach that perseverance is necessary for being eternally saved would logically lead to the conclusion that Isaiah 53: 5 is false. But, he ought to quit relying on his logical reasonings and accept the plain teachings of Scripture. The truth of the matter is this; the atonement of Christ is what has purchased faith, repentance, and perseverance for the elect. This was affirmed by Paul when he wrote:
"He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?" (Rom. 8: 32)
Does Teth not agree with his Hardshell brethren when they say that "faith" is a gift of God that was made certain for the elect by the atonement? If he can believe that faith is a gift purchased by Christ for his elect, why can he not believe that perseverance is also a purchased gift?
However, the logic of Teth would force him to affirm that not only is perseverance not necessary for being eternally saved, but neither is faith, repentance, confession of Christ, and following Christ. To insist that faith and repentance are necessary for eternal salvation, by Teth's logic, would "place an obligation upon" sinners "that the bible says was laid upon the Lord Jesus Christ." Teth's position is that there is no obligation upon sinners to do anything to be eternally saved, for this would mean that Christ's atonement was not the sole reason for being saved. So, men do not have to believe, nor repent, to be saved. But, in this, he is against what is so plainly taught in Scripture.
Further, Teth did not prove that Solomon did not "hold on his way." It is not enough to show that he sinned, for no believer in perseverance affirms that to persevere means the same as not sinning. What perseverance means is that those who sin will be successfully corrected by God and brought to repentance. In fact, it was Solomon himself who wrote - "For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth." (Pro. 3: 12) Paul cites these words in Hebrews 12: 6. Consider also that the text does not say simply that the Lord tries to correct his children, but that he actually does it. Does Teth believe that God fails in his work of correction? Does he believe that God failed to correct Solomon? Obviously he does.
Teth again cited Kevin, who said:
"We learn as well that Christ achieved reconciliation for those who "continue in the faith" (Col. 1:20-23)"
To this Teth replied:
"Indeed if our “continuing in the faith” is a condition of eternal salvation, then Christ did not meet all of the conditions and salvation is not by sovereign grace."
What is this but a blatant denial of what the text says? Teth's opposition is not to anything Kevin has said, but to what the Apostle Paul said. Again, Teth argues against what the text says, not by exegeting the text, or citing other texts that might contradict or throw light on the text, but by his inability to see how perseverance does not contradict sovereign grace soteriology. Teth did not go to the text and try to show how the text does not teach that continuing in the faith was necessary for being eternally saved. He certainly cannot make this passage to deal with a mere temporal salvation. Paul is talking about that reconciliation that has come to the elect by the death of Christ and says that the Colossians are indeed reconciled by Christ's atonement "if you continue in the faith grounded and settled," and if you "be not moved away from the hope of the gospel."
Teth again cited Kevin, who said:
"...we are the house of Christ "if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end" (Heb. 3:6).”
To this Teth replied:
"The sense in which these things are intended is in the here and now."
This is scholarly exegesis? We are to just take Teth's interpretation as if it were inspired? Being made a partaker of Christ does not relate to being eternally saved? One does not have to be made a partaker of Christ to be saved? One does not have to be a member of the house of Christ to be saved? With this kind of Bible teaching, it is no wonder that only a cult few take Hardshell teachers seriously.
Teth then asks - "Is sin a turning away from God?"
No, sin is not a turning away from God, at least not in the sense in which the phrase turning away from God is used in Scripture. Certainly God's people transgress the laws of God. Certainly the children of God are sometimes disobedient to their heavenly Father. But, these sins are not total apostasies, a total giving up of faith and trust in God and his salvation. In this sense, God's born again people "cannot sin." (I John 3: 9; 5: 18)
Kevin also cited the words of the prophet who wrote:
"And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me." (Jer. 32: 40)
To this Scripture Teth wrote in reply:
"To accommodate the reality of remaining sin is to undermine what you imply is meant by “shall not depart.” So we see that this passage is in reference to the certainty of their standing before God as a result of the intercessory work of Christ, who most certainly DID NOT DEPART and whose righteousness is THEIR righteousness through imputation."
It is good that Teth sees that the promise that someone "shall not depart from me" is a result of the atonement. What he cannot accept however is the idea that it is the elect who are assured of persevering. He thinks that the one who is under consideration is Christ. He is the one who will not depart. But, this is poor Bible interpretation. The use of the plural pronouns "them" and "they" show that it is not Christ who "shall not depart" as a result of the atonement and covenant, but it is the ones in whose hearts God puts his fear.
Further, it is necessary to again point out the error of Teth arguing that the fact that the saints sin proves that they are not persevering. That is not what perseverance involves. Perseverence involves the idea that the saints will not be overcome by their sins, but will eventually overcome them, by regularly confessing their sins and turning from them.
In my next posting I will show how men such as Teth ought to read what Elder Watson said about salvation being both conditional and unconditional, and how he corrects the illogical reasonings of men like Teth.
Friday, October 25, 2013
Apologetics Can Be Frustrating
In the past few days I have come to learn first-hand the frustration that can come when trying to lead one to see the error of his way. This is especially true when it is apparent that the one you are trying to correct is so ingrained in his set of beliefs that it seems almost a hopeless pursuit. Do you continue the conversation? If you do not, this may suggest that you’ve been stumped, and the opposing view has gained the upper hand. If you do, you know that your pearls will continue to be trampled underfoot with little consideration to your own beliefs.
A few days ago I commented on a “Primitive Baptist” blog posting "Was Solomon a Child of God?" from www.theearstohear.blogspot.com. The case was argued that Solomon is an example of a regenerate child of God who was preserved by God, but did not persevere in his profession. I left a comment asking the author if he agreed with the teaching found in the confession of his own order! The 1900 Fulton Confession of Faith, despite its other flaws, condoned the Perseverance of the Saints as defined by the London brethren!
After just a couple of exchanges by us both, I became disheartened. The number of errors and caricatures of Calvinism were so many it was hard to find motivation to respond. Where to start?
In their apologetics Hardshells often make assertions which sweep over finer points of systematic theology as if they are trivial matters. Conditions, necessities, or saying that our salvation depends upon something are subjects that need defining before they are presumptuously thrown in the waste basket as having no place in the salvation of sinners. I saw this whenever I was growing in my knowledge of the scriptures. These terms are ambiguous in the hands of men, and we need to know what writers mean when they use them.
That being said, here are some brief points I would like for the blog editor to consider, as well as anyone else who is equally misguided.
1. History cannot be ignored. The author hid from my question as to whether he agreed with the Fulton Confession of Faith and the 1777 Kehukee Association Articles on the matter of perseverance. He flew to the refuge that the scriptures, and not historical documents, are our authority. Correct. No one denies that they are. Yet the title “Primitive” is a claim to historicity, in which you are basically saying that my views are the old, original views. I suppose ignoring the question is the only alternative when one comes to realize that answering it would be an admission that he or she is advocating something new. Those today who deny perseverance have not only departed from the London Confession, but the Fulton as well. This is just more evidence of the evolution of doctrine over the past 150 years or so.
2. Perseverance is not “works” salvation. The new life of the regenerate is Christ within us (Gal. 2:20). He is the author of our good works (Philip. 1:11; 2:13). Hardshells generally do not understand this, but have a free-will view of man’s nature after the new birth. They are post-regeneration free-willers. In their view the "few" elect who do persevere have become their own Savior. They are "saving themselves" since there is no decree from God to guarantee they shall, and the Spirit’s work in regeneration can’t or won’t effect it. This is the Arminianism within conditional time salvation.
3. Perseverance is a definite fruit of regeneration. The scriptures teach what shall definitely happen to the elect after regeneration. They shall hold on their way (Job 17:9). They fall down but rise again (Prov. 24:6). They will continue in the faith (Col. 1:23; 1 John 2:19).
4. The "finished work" of Christ cannot be carried to the point of fatalism. Case and point. "If Christ died for a man, then that man will go to heaven even if he remains an unchanged rebel in unbelief and sin." Perish the thought! Many Hardshells shout of the "finished work" of Christ as if nothing else needs to happen for the elect to be saved. Anything else is said to be an "addition" to the work of Christ. But do not sinners have to be born again to go to heaven? This proves that something else needs to happen to the elect after the death of Christ. And so they should not be so close-minded on the subject of what yet remains for the elect to be fitted for heaven after Christ suffered and died. The redeeming work of Christ must be communicated in the new birth for starters.
5. Ambiguous terms must be properly understood. The term condition and similar expressions belong in the conversation of how sinners are saved. The Hardshell error lies in equating them with efficient causes, thus allowing them to make the charge that Calvinists are denying that the blood of Christ, the death of Christ, or the grace of God are the reasons for our salvation. When Calvinists speak of conditions within the context of eternal salvation they simply mean that something must be in place for the salvation transaction to transpire. We could say that my salvation "depended upon" those who crucified our Lord. If they do not do so, then Christ would not die, and no one would be redeemed! I could say that regeneration was a "condition" that had to be met for my final salvation into glory. Probably the worst error in this discussion is to confuse the decree of salvation with its administration. We were unconditionally elected to receive certain conditions in time, which God’s grace will provide (Romans 8:32); namely, faith, repentance, and holiness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)