Monday, November 18, 2013
A Choice Is Made
“O happy day, that fixed my choice
On Thee, my Savior and my God!
Yesterday in church we sang the hymn ”O Happy Day” from which the above lyrics are taken.
Yet this time was different.
It was, along with several other hymns I could name, no longer sang hyprocritically as it had been done dozens of times before when I was part of the “Primitive Baptist” Church.
As part of their continuing journey to truth, I have considered it my duty to point out to my little congregation certain expressions in the hymns we sing which overthrow that false system of which they were once a part. Gospel means, praying for the lost, preaching to the lost, and the perseverance of the saints are doctrines taught in several of the hymns which are sung on a regular basis among the churches. The odd thing is that they are sung without hesitation, only to have ministers ascend into the pulpit and proceed to preach against the very thing which they sang.
“Let us tell them of the Savior…”, yet no one tells anyone of Christ.
”Is there here a trembling jailor…”, looking for a time salvation?
The Articles of Faith are already being rewritten. Will the same hold true for hymns, or will they cease to be sung altogether?
As hinted at by our title, one area of inconsistency in the singing and the preaching involves the role of the will in salvation. As other men have done, Hardshells have over-reacted to the modern evangelistic appeal of “accepting Christ”. While I agree with those men who say that this is not the best way to express to sinners what is really required of them in being saved, we should not cast the baby out with the bathwater. There is a tendency in human nature to go to the opposite extreme when it sees what it thinks is an error. I am quite sure that this has happened in some men’s opposition to decisional regeneration.
One of the biggest steps toward truth which today’s Hardshells can make is to come to see that the will plays a role in salvation. God in His sovereignty does not, as Spurgeon would say, rob man of his manhood by saving Him apart from his will. If the new man is made to believe, then obviously the will was turned in the direction of faith! If the new man is said to receive Christ (John 1:12), then how could this be done without volition of his will? If the saints have “made a covenant” with God (Ps. 50:5), then the will made a choice to do so!
None of this implies salvation is not of grace, for there yet remains the question “How did the will come to choose what it did?”
As one who used to be in terrible error, I can now say assuredly:
A choice is made.
Sunday, November 17, 2013
Was S. Hassell Right?
Elder Sylvester Hassell's views on the Gospel being a means in regeneration may be viewed by looking at his answers to the following questions.
"Q. Have Baptists always denied the use of means in regeneration?
A. In careless expressions some Baptists have advanced this error, but the same men, when taking into consideration the entire teaching of the Scriptures on this point, have, in their more exact expressions, repudiated it." (see here)
In the same question and answer writing, however, Hassell says:
"Jesus is the Great Preacher, and, by His omnipresent Spirit, He preaches His gospel savingly to His people (Isa. 61:1-3,10,11; Luke 4:16-30; Heb. 2:11,12; Psalm 110:3)."
Obviously Hassell thinks that his forefathers who affirmed the use of means in regeneration used "careless expressions" in their defense of the means position. One could take that to mean that Hassell denies that his forefathers actually believed and taught such a view, only seeming to do so. But, this seems unlikely because he says that these same Baptists in using such "careless expressions" actually "advanced this error." But, then he contradicts this statement by saying that the same people who advanced this error did not really believe or mean what they said, affirming that the same people "in their more exact expressions, repudiated it." So, he says that they at the same time both affirmed and denied the use of means in regeneration?
Hassell's apologetic is cunning and intended to deceive the Hardshell brotherhood to whom he is writing. He wants his Hardshell brethren to believe that his forefathers who affirmed the use of means in regeneration did not really mean or believe what they were saying, and that they sometimes wrote and advocated the exact opposite view. Yet, in our series on "What the First Hardshells Believed," we saw that the founding fathers of the Hardshell denomination were very clear and exact in affirming their belief, in harmony with the 1689 London Confession, that God regenerated his elect by the preaching of the Gospel. I have examined all the Hardshell periodicals of the 1830s and 1840s and the writings of the first generation of Hardshell leaders who wrote in those periodicals, and I cannot find where they ever spoke out of both sides of their mouths on this issue, where they ever denied that regeneration was accomplished by the means of the Gospel. So, when Hassell affirms that they had "more exact expressions" where they repudiated what they elsewhere clearly affirmed, we find no evidence to substantiate what he says . Why did not Hassell simply give us those "more exact expressions"?
In my previous posting I cited the words of Sylvester's father, C.B. Hassell, who was very clear and exact in saying that when the elect "are made to believe" the Gospel, "by the teaching of the Holy Spirit." that they are "then no longer under the law but under grace--no longer dead in trespasses and sins but alive." and that this coming to evangelical faith was "their creation anew in Christ Jesus." Now, I do not find this to be in the category of "careless expressions," nor do I find where the older Hassell ever wrote denying what he here affirms.
I cited from the May 25th, 1839 issue of "The Primitive Baptist" where it was affirmed that the Gospel was "the power of God," the instrument "effecting regeneration and implanting in them eternal life." And, in the January 1840 issue of this paper, it is said that the Gospel "actually gives life to them that were dead" and speaks of the "gospel's quickening influence." Are these mere "careless expressions"?
Sylvester, after accusing his Baptist forefathers (including his own father) of using "careless expressions," and of advocating opposite views, being unstable on the issue, offers to give us what he considers to be an exact and careful expression of the question. He says that all the elect will hear and believe the Gospel because Jesus will personally preach it to each of them! Yet, this is not what was taught in "The Primitive Baptist" paper, Vol. 10, January 25th, 1845, for they say, about evangelical faith, that they "know of no other way" to come to faith in the Gospel, or in Christ, "but the way prescribed in the written word of God," saying "For we are told that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God; and how can we hear without a preacher, and how can they preach except they be sent?"
But, it must be observed how the younger Hassell did not go so far as today's Hardshells, for he was still willing to affirm that all the elect will hear and believe the Gospel. His view, however, was one step away from the faith of his father, and one step short of today's Hardshells. Further, it is Sylvester's father that was clear and exact and Sylvester's statement on the question is what is a very "careless expression."
All this presents great difficulties for Hardshells as it respects their Landmarker views of church succession. Today's Hardshells would say that any church that believes in regeneration by the Gospel is not a genuine church and that a genuine church must come from a genuine church. By this standard, today's Hardshells are not genuine churches, for they have come from churches that believed in Gospel means.
"Q. Have Baptists always denied the use of means in regeneration?
A. In careless expressions some Baptists have advanced this error, but the same men, when taking into consideration the entire teaching of the Scriptures on this point, have, in their more exact expressions, repudiated it." (see here)
In the same question and answer writing, however, Hassell says:
"Jesus is the Great Preacher, and, by His omnipresent Spirit, He preaches His gospel savingly to His people (Isa. 61:1-3,10,11; Luke 4:16-30; Heb. 2:11,12; Psalm 110:3)."
Obviously Hassell thinks that his forefathers who affirmed the use of means in regeneration used "careless expressions" in their defense of the means position. One could take that to mean that Hassell denies that his forefathers actually believed and taught such a view, only seeming to do so. But, this seems unlikely because he says that these same Baptists in using such "careless expressions" actually "advanced this error." But, then he contradicts this statement by saying that the same people who advanced this error did not really believe or mean what they said, affirming that the same people "in their more exact expressions, repudiated it." So, he says that they at the same time both affirmed and denied the use of means in regeneration?
Hassell's apologetic is cunning and intended to deceive the Hardshell brotherhood to whom he is writing. He wants his Hardshell brethren to believe that his forefathers who affirmed the use of means in regeneration did not really mean or believe what they were saying, and that they sometimes wrote and advocated the exact opposite view. Yet, in our series on "What the First Hardshells Believed," we saw that the founding fathers of the Hardshell denomination were very clear and exact in affirming their belief, in harmony with the 1689 London Confession, that God regenerated his elect by the preaching of the Gospel. I have examined all the Hardshell periodicals of the 1830s and 1840s and the writings of the first generation of Hardshell leaders who wrote in those periodicals, and I cannot find where they ever spoke out of both sides of their mouths on this issue, where they ever denied that regeneration was accomplished by the means of the Gospel. So, when Hassell affirms that they had "more exact expressions" where they repudiated what they elsewhere clearly affirmed, we find no evidence to substantiate what he says . Why did not Hassell simply give us those "more exact expressions"?
In my previous posting I cited the words of Sylvester's father, C.B. Hassell, who was very clear and exact in saying that when the elect "are made to believe" the Gospel, "by the teaching of the Holy Spirit." that they are "then no longer under the law but under grace--no longer dead in trespasses and sins but alive." and that this coming to evangelical faith was "their creation anew in Christ Jesus." Now, I do not find this to be in the category of "careless expressions," nor do I find where the older Hassell ever wrote denying what he here affirms.
I cited from the May 25th, 1839 issue of "The Primitive Baptist" where it was affirmed that the Gospel was "the power of God," the instrument "effecting regeneration and implanting in them eternal life." And, in the January 1840 issue of this paper, it is said that the Gospel "actually gives life to them that were dead" and speaks of the "gospel's quickening influence." Are these mere "careless expressions"?
Sylvester, after accusing his Baptist forefathers (including his own father) of using "careless expressions," and of advocating opposite views, being unstable on the issue, offers to give us what he considers to be an exact and careful expression of the question. He says that all the elect will hear and believe the Gospel because Jesus will personally preach it to each of them! Yet, this is not what was taught in "The Primitive Baptist" paper, Vol. 10, January 25th, 1845, for they say, about evangelical faith, that they "know of no other way" to come to faith in the Gospel, or in Christ, "but the way prescribed in the written word of God," saying "For we are told that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God; and how can we hear without a preacher, and how can they preach except they be sent?"
But, it must be observed how the younger Hassell did not go so far as today's Hardshells, for he was still willing to affirm that all the elect will hear and believe the Gospel. His view, however, was one step away from the faith of his father, and one step short of today's Hardshells. Further, it is Sylvester's father that was clear and exact and Sylvester's statement on the question is what is a very "careless expression."
All this presents great difficulties for Hardshells as it respects their Landmarker views of church succession. Today's Hardshells would say that any church that believes in regeneration by the Gospel is not a genuine church and that a genuine church must come from a genuine church. By this standard, today's Hardshells are not genuine churches, for they have come from churches that believed in Gospel means.
Friday, November 15, 2013
What the first Hardshells Believed VII
Vol 10 of "The Primitive Baptist" (Jan. 25th, 1845)
"Well, says one, how are we to come in possession of that of which you have been speakiing? (belief of the truth - SG) I know of no other way but the way prescribed in the written word of God. You must receive it by the hearing of the word of truth, when spoken unto you in the demonstration of the spirit and power of God, who is the author of it. For we are told that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God; and how can we hear without a preacher, and how can they preach except they be sent?"
The first Hardshells believed that all the elect would come to a knowledge and belief of the truth and often cited II Thess. 2: 13 in proof of it. But, notice how they say that they "know of no other way" to come to this faith except by the preaching of the word of truth. Today's Hardshells, however, think they know of another way to come to saving faith, one that is apart from hearing and believing the Gospel.
Elder C. B. Hassell was the father of Elder Sylvester Hassell. The older Hassell believed in Gospel means, but the younger Hassell departed from the faith of his father, which was the faith of the Old Baptists. C.B. Hassell often wrote for the North Carolina periodical "The Primitive Baptist," and we have already seen how this paper was strong in its belief that regeneration was accomplished by the preaching of the Gospel and in the final perseverance of the saints. Let me now give a citation from C. B. Hassell.
He wrote:
"On the contrary we believe, the gospel is God's system of salvation for ruined man, and that He saves them by grace of His and not by works of theirs. Kehukeeites believe, that the Saviour took the law place and stead of his people, and for them and in their behalf fulfilled it to a punctilio...This they are made to believe by the teaching of the Holy Spirit, and this belief is counted to them for righteousness without the deeds of the law. They are then no longer under the law but under grace--no longer dead in trespasses and sins but alive to holiness,-- having their fruit unto the same and the end thereof everlasting life. This belief in Christ, caused by the teaching of the Holy Spirit, is their creation anew in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that they should walk in; and henceforward they abound in good works to God, begotten by the active principle of grace within them, not from a principle of slavish fear, by which they expect to escape eternal punishment." (March 8, 1845)
Is this not clear? Sinners are not spiritually alive until they are "made to believe" the Gospel. This coming to believe the Gospel "is their creation anew in Christ." Is this what Hardshells believe today? Is this what the Kehukeeites believe today?
"Well, says one, how are we to come in possession of that of which you have been speakiing? (belief of the truth - SG) I know of no other way but the way prescribed in the written word of God. You must receive it by the hearing of the word of truth, when spoken unto you in the demonstration of the spirit and power of God, who is the author of it. For we are told that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God; and how can we hear without a preacher, and how can they preach except they be sent?"
The first Hardshells believed that all the elect would come to a knowledge and belief of the truth and often cited II Thess. 2: 13 in proof of it. But, notice how they say that they "know of no other way" to come to this faith except by the preaching of the word of truth. Today's Hardshells, however, think they know of another way to come to saving faith, one that is apart from hearing and believing the Gospel.
Elder C. B. Hassell was the father of Elder Sylvester Hassell. The older Hassell believed in Gospel means, but the younger Hassell departed from the faith of his father, which was the faith of the Old Baptists. C.B. Hassell often wrote for the North Carolina periodical "The Primitive Baptist," and we have already seen how this paper was strong in its belief that regeneration was accomplished by the preaching of the Gospel and in the final perseverance of the saints. Let me now give a citation from C. B. Hassell.
He wrote:
"On the contrary we believe, the gospel is God's system of salvation for ruined man, and that He saves them by grace of His and not by works of theirs. Kehukeeites believe, that the Saviour took the law place and stead of his people, and for them and in their behalf fulfilled it to a punctilio...This they are made to believe by the teaching of the Holy Spirit, and this belief is counted to them for righteousness without the deeds of the law. They are then no longer under the law but under grace--no longer dead in trespasses and sins but alive to holiness,-- having their fruit unto the same and the end thereof everlasting life. This belief in Christ, caused by the teaching of the Holy Spirit, is their creation anew in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that they should walk in; and henceforward they abound in good works to God, begotten by the active principle of grace within them, not from a principle of slavish fear, by which they expect to escape eternal punishment." (March 8, 1845)
Is this not clear? Sinners are not spiritually alive until they are "made to believe" the Gospel. This coming to believe the Gospel "is their creation anew in Christ." Is this what Hardshells believe today? Is this what the Kehukeeites believe today?
Sunday, November 10, 2013
What the first Hardshells Believed VI
From Vol. 4 (1839) of "The Primitive Baptist"
"And now, brethren, this will lead us to speak of the faith of God's elect, (Paul to Titus, 1: 1) that which is peculiar to the followers of God, (Eph. 2: 8) with which salvation is connected, which purifies the heart and works by love. This faith consists not only in the belief of the gospel revelation of redemption, and salvation by Christ alone; but, also, in a sole trust in, and dependence on Christ, and the word of his grace, for eternal life, as you may read in Isaiah 36: 4, which reads thus: "Trust ye in the Lord forever, for in the Lord Jehovah is everlasting strength." Then, surely, this faith is worth contending for."
(April 13, 1839, being an "Extract from the Minutes of the first session of the Ebenezer Baptist Association, held at Fort Dale meeting house, Butler county, Ala. from the 7th to the 10th December, inclusive, A.D. 1838)
One thing is obvious from these words of the first Hardshells. They believed that the faith of God's elect, the faith that they all possess, was a faith that involved a belief of the truth. They knew nothing of the kind of faith that later Hardshells invented, a faith that is a mere metaphysical substance, that believes nothing. They affirm that this evangelical faith has salvation connected to it, and involved trust in the Lord. They did not believe that this salvation was a mere "time salvation." Further, this belief and trust is "for eternal life."
From Vol. 5 (Jan. 1840)
"Pray for us, that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men; for all men have not faith. If they had evangelical faith, which is the witness of the Holy Ghost, called the faith of God's elect, working by love, purifying the heart, they would not depart from the traditions received of the apostles." (Jan. 11, 1840)
Notice again how the faith that saves, the faith of God's elect, was an "evangelical faith," a faith that comes by hearing the Gospel. Notice also the affirmation of the doctrine of perseverence, that the gift of evangelical faith prevents departing from the Gospel.
From Vol. 4 (1839)
"...but also his goodness manifest in the descent of the Holy Ghost, communicated through the medium of the gospel to the children of men, and especially to the church of the first born, thereby becoming the power of God, and by that power making Jesus Christ to every believer wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption. And also his peculiar regard manifest in providing a gospel ministry, and through them to communicate the bread of life and cause that river to flow the streams whereof make glad the city of God." (May 11, 1839)
Notice how the first Hardshells believed that it is "through the medium of the gospel" that the Holy Ghost and the bread of life are communicated. Today's Hardshells have left the teaching of their forefathers in denying these truths.
"Together with everlasting love of God the Father, treasured up in the covenant of redemption from all eternity, and thus manifest through Christ the Son or mediator, and made known to sinners through the gospel which is the power of God; thus effecting regeneration and implanting in them eternal life. And hence it is said: And this is life eternal, to know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou has sent." (May 25, 1839)
Notice again how the first Hardshells taught that regeneration was effected through the Gospel and that it was by the Gospel that eternal life was implanted.
"But the true believer knows, that it takes grace to save and that it is grace; and that grace opened his understanding, so that he believed that he was a lost sinner, a blind sinner, a helpless sinner, a condemned sinner; all these things are brought to pass by the spirit of grace leading the soul to faith, faith is belief, belief in Jesus the Saviour, who came to seek and save that which was lost; and faith points to that grace given in Christ, that did and does, and will save. This is what is called a saving knowledge, the belief of which is faith and leads the sinner to repent, and that with a godly sorrow, and that godly sorrow works repentance, not to be repented of and that work is a good work; but it was not that work that saved the sinner, but it was produced from a knowledge of his salvation; it produced obedience, humbleness, meekness, faithfulness, honesty in righteousness, and all the rruits of the Spirit, which grow out of the new birth." (July 27, 1839)
Notice again that "faith is belief." Today's Hardshells need to return to the Old Baptist position on what is faith and leave off their modern definitions of it.
Vol. 5 Jan. 1840)
"And that gospel, instead of requiring legal duties of the dead, as a condition of their receiving life; actually gives life to them that were dead--spiritual life to such as had no such quality in them before; divine life, and union with God to such as were really his enemies, and far from righteousness of any kind until it was communicated by the gospel's quickening influence...The law was an administration of death to all that were found transgressors of it; the gospel was, and is the power of God unto salvation, to all the chosen seed."
Again, this is very clear. The Gospel is the instrument whereby God gives spiritual life to the dead.
What say our modern Hardshells to all this evidence about how the first Hardshells believed that regeneration was effected by the preaching of the Gospel?
"And now, brethren, this will lead us to speak of the faith of God's elect, (Paul to Titus, 1: 1) that which is peculiar to the followers of God, (Eph. 2: 8) with which salvation is connected, which purifies the heart and works by love. This faith consists not only in the belief of the gospel revelation of redemption, and salvation by Christ alone; but, also, in a sole trust in, and dependence on Christ, and the word of his grace, for eternal life, as you may read in Isaiah 36: 4, which reads thus: "Trust ye in the Lord forever, for in the Lord Jehovah is everlasting strength." Then, surely, this faith is worth contending for."
(April 13, 1839, being an "Extract from the Minutes of the first session of the Ebenezer Baptist Association, held at Fort Dale meeting house, Butler county, Ala. from the 7th to the 10th December, inclusive, A.D. 1838)
One thing is obvious from these words of the first Hardshells. They believed that the faith of God's elect, the faith that they all possess, was a faith that involved a belief of the truth. They knew nothing of the kind of faith that later Hardshells invented, a faith that is a mere metaphysical substance, that believes nothing. They affirm that this evangelical faith has salvation connected to it, and involved trust in the Lord. They did not believe that this salvation was a mere "time salvation." Further, this belief and trust is "for eternal life."
From Vol. 5 (Jan. 1840)
"Pray for us, that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men; for all men have not faith. If they had evangelical faith, which is the witness of the Holy Ghost, called the faith of God's elect, working by love, purifying the heart, they would not depart from the traditions received of the apostles." (Jan. 11, 1840)
Notice again how the faith that saves, the faith of God's elect, was an "evangelical faith," a faith that comes by hearing the Gospel. Notice also the affirmation of the doctrine of perseverence, that the gift of evangelical faith prevents departing from the Gospel.
From Vol. 4 (1839)
"...but also his goodness manifest in the descent of the Holy Ghost, communicated through the medium of the gospel to the children of men, and especially to the church of the first born, thereby becoming the power of God, and by that power making Jesus Christ to every believer wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption. And also his peculiar regard manifest in providing a gospel ministry, and through them to communicate the bread of life and cause that river to flow the streams whereof make glad the city of God." (May 11, 1839)
Notice how the first Hardshells believed that it is "through the medium of the gospel" that the Holy Ghost and the bread of life are communicated. Today's Hardshells have left the teaching of their forefathers in denying these truths.
"Together with everlasting love of God the Father, treasured up in the covenant of redemption from all eternity, and thus manifest through Christ the Son or mediator, and made known to sinners through the gospel which is the power of God; thus effecting regeneration and implanting in them eternal life. And hence it is said: And this is life eternal, to know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou has sent." (May 25, 1839)
Notice again how the first Hardshells taught that regeneration was effected through the Gospel and that it was by the Gospel that eternal life was implanted.
"But the true believer knows, that it takes grace to save and that it is grace; and that grace opened his understanding, so that he believed that he was a lost sinner, a blind sinner, a helpless sinner, a condemned sinner; all these things are brought to pass by the spirit of grace leading the soul to faith, faith is belief, belief in Jesus the Saviour, who came to seek and save that which was lost; and faith points to that grace given in Christ, that did and does, and will save. This is what is called a saving knowledge, the belief of which is faith and leads the sinner to repent, and that with a godly sorrow, and that godly sorrow works repentance, not to be repented of and that work is a good work; but it was not that work that saved the sinner, but it was produced from a knowledge of his salvation; it produced obedience, humbleness, meekness, faithfulness, honesty in righteousness, and all the rruits of the Spirit, which grow out of the new birth." (July 27, 1839)
Notice again that "faith is belief." Today's Hardshells need to return to the Old Baptist position on what is faith and leave off their modern definitions of it.
Vol. 5 Jan. 1840)
"And that gospel, instead of requiring legal duties of the dead, as a condition of their receiving life; actually gives life to them that were dead--spiritual life to such as had no such quality in them before; divine life, and union with God to such as were really his enemies, and far from righteousness of any kind until it was communicated by the gospel's quickening influence...The law was an administration of death to all that were found transgressors of it; the gospel was, and is the power of God unto salvation, to all the chosen seed."
Again, this is very clear. The Gospel is the instrument whereby God gives spiritual life to the dead.
What say our modern Hardshells to all this evidence about how the first Hardshells believed that regeneration was effected by the preaching of the Gospel?
Saturday, November 9, 2013
A Hardshell Blunder
The Hardshell apologist at theearstohear blog wrote this in a posting in which he takes issue with the learned Adrian Rogers, well known past president of the Southern Baptist Convention. This Hardshell said:
"God’s intent was not to have the love and worship of all of humanity." (see here)
Rogers was discussing the problem of evil and the fall of man and of the angels. In doing this he also discussed the freedom of will that the angels and man had before their fall into sin and death. This Hardshell found fault with this, misunderstanding Rogers, and applying what Rogers said about the will of unfallen angels and men to fallen angels and men. But, in reading this Hardshell's comments it is obvious that this Hardshell does not understand how there are two kinds of will in God, how God can be said to will, and not will, something. John Piper has written on this and I recommend that Hardshells read it (see here). This Hardshell, not understanding this, assumes that since all men do not love and worship God, then it must not be his will for them to do so. This would be true if we were talking about God's irresistable will, or his secret will, or his predestination, but it is not true regarding his revealed will, that will which is resisted and opposed.
Still, it is the worst of blunders to say that God has no intent or command for all men to love and worship God. Let us look at Scripture that teaches the opposite.
"Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." (Matt. 4: 10)
"And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." (Deut. 6: 5)
"And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters." (Rev. 14: 6-7)
Obviously these verses teach that God indeed commands or wills that all men love and worship Lord God. If this is not so, then let the Antinomian Hardshells explain the above verses, and let them tell us how hating and not worshipping God are sins, and are condemned, if it is not an obligation.
"Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen...haters of God..." (Rom. 1: 25, 30)
"And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk." (Rev. 9: 20)
"Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me." (Exo. 20: 5)
These verses show that not loving and worshipping God are transgressions of God's commands. And, who can deny that God's commands are an expression of his will? Does God will that men lie, steal, murder, etc.? According to the Hardshell apologist at theearstohear blog, it is his will, and is not in any sense against his will.
In this same posting, the Hardshell also said:
"This is all philosophical speculation with no basis in scripture...he’s not using scripture to make his case here – he’s using vain philosophy that is completely disconnected from the bible’s testimony...Again, this is pure conjecture on his part without a shred of scriptural evidence to support it." (see here)
I had to chuckle when I read these words because this is the very thing that this Hardshell does himself, as I have pointed out in recent postings against this Hardshell apologist! It would be good if this Hardshell followed his own advice.
"God’s intent was not to have the love and worship of all of humanity." (see here)
Rogers was discussing the problem of evil and the fall of man and of the angels. In doing this he also discussed the freedom of will that the angels and man had before their fall into sin and death. This Hardshell found fault with this, misunderstanding Rogers, and applying what Rogers said about the will of unfallen angels and men to fallen angels and men. But, in reading this Hardshell's comments it is obvious that this Hardshell does not understand how there are two kinds of will in God, how God can be said to will, and not will, something. John Piper has written on this and I recommend that Hardshells read it (see here). This Hardshell, not understanding this, assumes that since all men do not love and worship God, then it must not be his will for them to do so. This would be true if we were talking about God's irresistable will, or his secret will, or his predestination, but it is not true regarding his revealed will, that will which is resisted and opposed.
Still, it is the worst of blunders to say that God has no intent or command for all men to love and worship God. Let us look at Scripture that teaches the opposite.
"Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." (Matt. 4: 10)
"And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." (Deut. 6: 5)
"And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters." (Rev. 14: 6-7)
Obviously these verses teach that God indeed commands or wills that all men love and worship Lord God. If this is not so, then let the Antinomian Hardshells explain the above verses, and let them tell us how hating and not worshipping God are sins, and are condemned, if it is not an obligation.
"Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen...haters of God..." (Rom. 1: 25, 30)
"And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk." (Rev. 9: 20)
"Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me." (Exo. 20: 5)
These verses show that not loving and worshipping God are transgressions of God's commands. And, who can deny that God's commands are an expression of his will? Does God will that men lie, steal, murder, etc.? According to the Hardshell apologist at theearstohear blog, it is his will, and is not in any sense against his will.
In this same posting, the Hardshell also said:
"This is all philosophical speculation with no basis in scripture...he’s not using scripture to make his case here – he’s using vain philosophy that is completely disconnected from the bible’s testimony...Again, this is pure conjecture on his part without a shred of scriptural evidence to support it." (see here)
I had to chuckle when I read these words because this is the very thing that this Hardshell does himself, as I have pointed out in recent postings against this Hardshell apologist! It would be good if this Hardshell followed his own advice.
Thursday, November 7, 2013
Hardshell Presuppositions
1. If the salvation mentioned in a text involves human means it is not eternal salvation.
2. If the salvation in a text requires faith, repentance, calling on the Lord, confession, perseverance, etc., yea, any act of a sinner or believer, then it cannot be eternal salvation.
3. If salvation is only received by those who believe and obey the Gospel, then this would make salvation to be by works and not by grace.
4. If salvation is promised only to those who believe, repent, confess, and persevere, then this would deny that salvation was solely based upon the work of Christ on the cross.
5. If salvation came through hearing the Gospel, then it becomes dependent upon men and their efforts and money.
6. Biblical commands imply ability to obey the commands.
7. People may be regenerated and yet be unbelievers and impenitent.
8. People may be regenerated who are not converted.
9. Believing and repenting are not duties God requires of all men.
10. People are not exhorted to seek God for the creation of a new heart.
11. If the Bible does not specifically mention a belief or practice, then it is not to be believed or practiced.
12. The doctrine of unconditional election necessitates believing that God has no love for those not chosen, and no desire at all for their salvation.
Hardshells did not derive these presuppositions from the Scriptures but take them to the Scriptures. Where did they get these propositions then? Did they not get them from their erroneous logical deductions rather than from express statements of Scripture?
The Hardshells have no express Scripture that says that unbelievers and the impenitent will be saved. They have no express Scripture that says that those professing Christians who do not persevere will be saved. All they have is are what they perceive to be logical deductions from Scriptural statements and propositions.
2. If the salvation in a text requires faith, repentance, calling on the Lord, confession, perseverance, etc., yea, any act of a sinner or believer, then it cannot be eternal salvation.
3. If salvation is only received by those who believe and obey the Gospel, then this would make salvation to be by works and not by grace.
4. If salvation is promised only to those who believe, repent, confess, and persevere, then this would deny that salvation was solely based upon the work of Christ on the cross.
5. If salvation came through hearing the Gospel, then it becomes dependent upon men and their efforts and money.
6. Biblical commands imply ability to obey the commands.
7. People may be regenerated and yet be unbelievers and impenitent.
8. People may be regenerated who are not converted.
9. Believing and repenting are not duties God requires of all men.
10. People are not exhorted to seek God for the creation of a new heart.
11. If the Bible does not specifically mention a belief or practice, then it is not to be believed or practiced.
12. The doctrine of unconditional election necessitates believing that God has no love for those not chosen, and no desire at all for their salvation.
Hardshells did not derive these presuppositions from the Scriptures but take them to the Scriptures. Where did they get these propositions then? Did they not get them from their erroneous logical deductions rather than from express statements of Scripture?
The Hardshells have no express Scripture that says that unbelievers and the impenitent will be saved. They have no express Scripture that says that those professing Christians who do not persevere will be saved. All they have is are what they perceive to be logical deductions from Scriptural statements and propositions.
Wednesday, November 6, 2013
Make You A New Heart
Hardshells say that no exhortations or appeals to the minds of unregenerate people can possibly be a means in creating new hearts and minds, in circumcising the heart, in quickening the dead. Yet, many verses show that they are wrong. In the verses I will be citing, it will be seen how God commands unregenerate people to become regenerate. Elder W. S. Craig, recognized Hardshell apologist, wrote the following years ago:
"Conversion, while often used otherwise, should be used with reference to a change of mind, views, intentions or purposes; while regeneration is a creative work and means to quicken, "born again," or give spiritual life...So while there may be earthly means used in conversion, nothing short of heavenly-means of the divine power can possibly regenerate...Exhortations, persuasions and arguments may very often affect and change the mind, but such feeble means cannot change any one from nature to grace, for this is a radical change. A change of mind or intentions is very far different from giving life to the dead...Conversion may in some respects be considered a moral act; but regeneration never. Exhortations to morality and right living are certainly commendable; but regeneration is not a duty, for men are not commanded to be "born again."" ("Conversion and Regeneration" - see here)
The particular statement of Craig that I wish to fully examine is the one where Craig says "regeneration is not a duty, for men are not commanded to be born again." But, let me first make a few comments on some of his other assertions.
By Craig's definition of "conversion" and "born again" it is clear that Craig believes that being born again or regenerated does not change one's mind, views, intentions, or purposes. All he says is that being born again gives a man spiritual life. But, it is a "life" that is undefinable, something physical. Yet, this is not the way the new testament writers define spiritual "life." Rather, they define spiritual life as involving the very things that Craig puts under the word conversion. It is hard to imagine, in view of the new testament writings, how anyone could be said to be spiritually alive but who still has the same thinking, the same views, the same purposes, that he had before he was born again. Craig's definition is a "hollow log" definition of what it means to be born again. Further, Craig would say that a man does not have to undergo a change in his direction, in his thinking and views, in his purpose, to be eternally saved. He does not have to be converted. Craig says there is no change of mind in being born again, for that comes later when one is converted. He says that being born again is a "radical change," but how can it be such if one's mind and heart are not changed? If his will and purpose are not changed? If his thinking is not changed?
Paul said:
"For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace." (Rom. 8: 6)
Notice how Paul defined spiritual life with being spiritually minded, the very thing that Craig denies.
Craig also says that the means God uses in conversion are "feeble" and "earthly" "means," and yet there is more change to the person in his definition of "conversion" than in his definition of "born again." Conversion he says is a moral act, but regeneration never is. Imagine that! A man is regenerated or born again and yet he has not experienced a moral transformation! Is he not saying that regeneration is a physical change of the soul? Of course, I overthrew this false idea in my series on "Hardshell Pelagianism."
Now let us look at verses which show that men are indeed commanded and exhorted to save themselves, to be regenerated, or to ask God to regenerate them.
"Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?" (Eze. 18: 31)
"A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh." (Eze. 36: 26)
No Hardshell will deny that God's promise in Ezekiel 36. to give people a new heart and spirit. is a reference to regeneration or to being born again. But, notice that the same language is used in chapter 18. How can they deny that regeneration is also the subject of that verse? But, I have no doubt that the Hardshells will want to make the new heart and spirit of Ezekiel 18: 31 to be different than that of Ezekiel 36: 26. And why would they not want to think that regeneration was alluded to in the first passage? Is it not because the verse demolishes their presuppositions about how the unregenerate are not to be exhorted in order to their regeneration, as Craig asserted? And, who can doubt that it is the unregenerate who are being addressed in the passages? Why would the Lord exhort people for the purpose of obtaining what they already have?
Further, the Hardshells argue that it is useless and foolish to so exhort those who are unregenerated and have only natural minds. They say that to do so would imply that regeneration can be accomplished by appealing to the carnal mind. But, in such a presupposition, do they not indict the Lord? Does the Lord not do in the above passage what they condemn? Was God acting foolishly in appealing to the natural minds of the unregenerate? Was God promoting Arminianism or Pelgianism? Further, to have a new heart and mind obviously is not to be understood of a physical change to the substance of the soul, but is a change in the disposition and thinking of the soul. To have a new mind is to have new views, new thinking, new purposes.
Paul said:
"Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new."
This verse is sufficient to overthrow Craig's Hardshell reasoning. Here is regeneration. Even Craig would admit this as do all Hardshells. Yet, Paul says that it is in being regenerated or born again that "all things become new." But, Craig denies this, leaving new thinking, new views, new direction, new purposes, etc., all left for a later experience of conversion. Paul did not say that only a change in the substance of the soul occurs in being regenerated, it being the only thing made new. He did not say a few things become new in the new birth, but most things become new later in conversion.
Notice how God commands the people to be regenerate, to make themselves a new heart and spirit. This is the very thing that Craig and the Hardshells deny to be a truth of Scripture! On Ezekiel 18: 31 Dr. Gill comments:
"...and make you a new heart and a new spirit; which the Lord elsewhere promises to give, and he does give to his own elect; (See Gill on Ezekiel 11:19); and if here to be understood of a regenerated heart and spirit, in which are new principles of light, life, and love, grace and holiness, it will not prove that it is in the power of man to make himself such a heart and spirit; since from God's command, to man's power, is no argument; and the design of the exhortation is to convince men of their want of such a heart; of the importance of it: and which, through the efficacious grace of God, may be a means of his people having it, seeing he has in covenant promised it to them." (commentary)
Notice that Gill says that such exhortations to men for them to make themselves new hearts and spirits, or to be regenerated, do not imply ability in them to do what he commands. He also says that the design of such an exhortation is to convince men of their want of such a heart and spirit and that such exhortations are means towards the creating of the new heart and spirit. There can be no other explanation of the passage. Thus, I call upon my Hardshell brothers to come forward and explain how their doctrinal presuppositions harmonize with God's exhorting the unregenerate to regeneration.
Now notice a similar verse. God said by Moses:
"Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked." (Deut. 10: 16)
On this verse Dr. Gill wrote:
"Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart - Content not yourselves with, nor put your confidence in outward circumcision of the flesh, but be concerned for the circumcision of the heart; for removing from that whatever is disagreeable to the Lord, even all carnality, sensuality, hypocrisy, and superfluity of naughtiness, and for having that put there which is well pleasing in his sight; and which though it is the work of God, and he only can do it and has promised it, yet such an exhortation is made to bring men to a sense of their need of it, and of the importance of it, and to show how agreeable it is to the Lord, and so to stir them up to seek unto him for it."
And notice how the same thing is said through Jeremiah.
"Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings." (Jer. 4: 4)
On this verse Dr. Gill wrote:
"...this is the true spiritual circumcision; and they that are possessed of it are the circumcision, the only truly circumcised persons; and they are such who have been pricked to the heart, and thoroughly convinced of sin; who have had the hardness of their hearts removed, and the impurity of it laid open to them; which they have beheld with shame and loathing, and have felt an inward pain on account of it; and who have been enabled to deny themselves, to renounce their own righteousness, and put off the body of the sins of the flesh: and though men are exhorted to do this themselves, yet elsewhere the Lord promises to do it for them, (Deuteronomy 30:6), and indeed it is purely his own work; or otherwise it could not he called, as it is, "circumcision without hands", and "whose praise is not of man, but of God", (Colossians 2:11) (Romans 2:29), and the reason of this exhortation, as before, is to convince those Jews, who were circumcised in the flesh, and rested and gloried in that, that their hearts were not circumcised, and that there was a necessity of it, and they in danger for want of it; as follows: lest my fury come forth like fire; to which the wrath of God is sometimes compared, (Nahum 1:6) and is sometimes signified by a furnace and lake of fire, even his eternal wrath and vengeance: and burn that none can quench it; such is the fire of divine wrath; it is unquenchable; it is everlasting, (Mark 9:43 Mark 9:44) (Matthew 3:12) (25:41): because of the evil of your doings; which are so provoking to the eyes of his glory; the sins of men are the fuel to the fire of his wrath, and cause it to burn to the lowest hell, without the least degree of mercy."
Dr. Gill gives the only explanation of these verses that is possible. Both Arminians and Calvinists agree with this explanation. The only ones who will deny it are the Pelagians and the Hardshells. But, I doubt we will ever see a Hardshell even attempt to deal with these verses. This is probably why they do not want to discuss or debate their views with others any more. If called upon in debate to harmonize these verses with their Hardshell aberrant views, how will they do it?
Now, let us look at some other verses that are really no different from the ones already looked at. Wrote Paul:
"Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light." (Eph. 5: 14)
How is the command to the spiritually dead to raise themselves from the dead any different from the commands for unregenerate sinners to circumcise their hearts and to make themselves new hearts and minds?
"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)
The Greek verb "repent" is from "metanoeō" and means to change one's mind, and in context generally means in regard to one's views about God, sin, and salvation. "Be converted" may be better translated as simply "convert." In other words, "repent and convert." The Greek verb for "convert" is "epistrephō" means to "turn." What is to be turned is the heart, mind, and conduct.
When one sees the truth about Ezekiel 18: 31, Deuteronomy 10: 16, Jeremiah 4: 4, then he will have no problem seeing that the command to repent (change your mind) and convert (turn away from your sins and to the Lord) are a command to become new creatures by calling upon the Lord.
"And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation." (Acts 2: 40)
On this verse Elder R. W. Thompson, writing in the "Primitive Monitor and Church Advocate" (Vol. 9, 1894) said: "This cannot mean eternal salvation..." (page 462 - see here)
But, he only asserts his case and gives no proof as to why the words "save yourselves" cannot have reference to final or eternal salvation. Would he also say that Ezekiel 18: 31, Deuteronomy 10: 16, Jeremiah 4: 4, and Ephesians 5: 14 cannot have reference to regeneration and eternal salvation? Why? Because his presupposition will not allow him to say so, his presupposition that says that men do not have a duty to circumcise their hearts to the Lord, to make them new hearts and minds, to raise themselves from the dead. Yet, clearly, we have shown how this presupposition is against the plain statements of Scripture.
Present day Hardshell elder Michael Gowens wrote:
"Old Baptists are virtually alone in their ability to reconcile apparently contradictory texts like Ephesians 2:8 (a text that teaches that salvation is not of ourselves) and Acts 2:40 (a text that exhorts us to save ourselves from this untoward generation), because they understand that the first verse has eternal ramifications and the second does not." ("Why I Am A Primitive Baptist" - see here)
Gowens thinks that Acts 2: 40 (save yourselves) cannot be the same salvation of Ephesians 2: 8 because one says that God does the saving and the other says that people save themselves. But, the contradiction is all in Gowen's head. There is no contradiction. By the logic of Gowens he must say that God does not do the saving of Acts 2: 40. Gowens is saying that he converted himself. God did not do it! He says this because his logic forces him to say it. When Gowens reads a text that says God saves a man, it excludes saying at the same time that a man saves himself. So, likewise, when a text says men save themselves, this excludes saying at the same time that God saved the man.
The Scriptures say that God hardened Pharaoh's heart, but it also says that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. Obviously it is possible for an action to be ascribed to both God and the sinner.
"And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple..." (Rev. 7: 14-15)
Notice that this being washed in the blood is said to be a work that the saved did for themselves. Yet, the Hardshells will not allow that such language is Scriptural. I am sure that they will try to go to work on such verses as these, trying to make them deal with only temporal deliverance, yet the task is an impossible one. Notice that the result of washing their robes in the blood of the Lamb is that they are in Heaven, before the throne. Come on, my Hardshell brethren, deal with these verses! Come teach us!
"And the Lord said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live." (Num. 21: 8)
Look and live! Hardshellism uprooted!
"Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David." (Isa. 55: 3)
Hear and live! Hardshellism uprooted!
"And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life." (John 5: 40)
Come to Christ for life! Hardshellism uprooted!
"And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth...That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us." (Acts 17: 26-27)
All men are commanded to repent and seek the Lord! Again, Hardshellism uprooted! Craig says men do not have such duties! And, what is the purpose for repenting and seeking the Lord? That they might "find him." What is regeneration but to find the Lord?
"Conversion, while often used otherwise, should be used with reference to a change of mind, views, intentions or purposes; while regeneration is a creative work and means to quicken, "born again," or give spiritual life...So while there may be earthly means used in conversion, nothing short of heavenly-means of the divine power can possibly regenerate...Exhortations, persuasions and arguments may very often affect and change the mind, but such feeble means cannot change any one from nature to grace, for this is a radical change. A change of mind or intentions is very far different from giving life to the dead...Conversion may in some respects be considered a moral act; but regeneration never. Exhortations to morality and right living are certainly commendable; but regeneration is not a duty, for men are not commanded to be "born again."" ("Conversion and Regeneration" - see here)
The particular statement of Craig that I wish to fully examine is the one where Craig says "regeneration is not a duty, for men are not commanded to be born again." But, let me first make a few comments on some of his other assertions.
By Craig's definition of "conversion" and "born again" it is clear that Craig believes that being born again or regenerated does not change one's mind, views, intentions, or purposes. All he says is that being born again gives a man spiritual life. But, it is a "life" that is undefinable, something physical. Yet, this is not the way the new testament writers define spiritual "life." Rather, they define spiritual life as involving the very things that Craig puts under the word conversion. It is hard to imagine, in view of the new testament writings, how anyone could be said to be spiritually alive but who still has the same thinking, the same views, the same purposes, that he had before he was born again. Craig's definition is a "hollow log" definition of what it means to be born again. Further, Craig would say that a man does not have to undergo a change in his direction, in his thinking and views, in his purpose, to be eternally saved. He does not have to be converted. Craig says there is no change of mind in being born again, for that comes later when one is converted. He says that being born again is a "radical change," but how can it be such if one's mind and heart are not changed? If his will and purpose are not changed? If his thinking is not changed?
Paul said:
"For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace." (Rom. 8: 6)
Notice how Paul defined spiritual life with being spiritually minded, the very thing that Craig denies.
Craig also says that the means God uses in conversion are "feeble" and "earthly" "means," and yet there is more change to the person in his definition of "conversion" than in his definition of "born again." Conversion he says is a moral act, but regeneration never is. Imagine that! A man is regenerated or born again and yet he has not experienced a moral transformation! Is he not saying that regeneration is a physical change of the soul? Of course, I overthrew this false idea in my series on "Hardshell Pelagianism."
Now let us look at verses which show that men are indeed commanded and exhorted to save themselves, to be regenerated, or to ask God to regenerate them.
"Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?" (Eze. 18: 31)
"A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh." (Eze. 36: 26)
No Hardshell will deny that God's promise in Ezekiel 36. to give people a new heart and spirit. is a reference to regeneration or to being born again. But, notice that the same language is used in chapter 18. How can they deny that regeneration is also the subject of that verse? But, I have no doubt that the Hardshells will want to make the new heart and spirit of Ezekiel 18: 31 to be different than that of Ezekiel 36: 26. And why would they not want to think that regeneration was alluded to in the first passage? Is it not because the verse demolishes their presuppositions about how the unregenerate are not to be exhorted in order to their regeneration, as Craig asserted? And, who can doubt that it is the unregenerate who are being addressed in the passages? Why would the Lord exhort people for the purpose of obtaining what they already have?
Further, the Hardshells argue that it is useless and foolish to so exhort those who are unregenerated and have only natural minds. They say that to do so would imply that regeneration can be accomplished by appealing to the carnal mind. But, in such a presupposition, do they not indict the Lord? Does the Lord not do in the above passage what they condemn? Was God acting foolishly in appealing to the natural minds of the unregenerate? Was God promoting Arminianism or Pelgianism? Further, to have a new heart and mind obviously is not to be understood of a physical change to the substance of the soul, but is a change in the disposition and thinking of the soul. To have a new mind is to have new views, new thinking, new purposes.
Paul said:
"Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new."
This verse is sufficient to overthrow Craig's Hardshell reasoning. Here is regeneration. Even Craig would admit this as do all Hardshells. Yet, Paul says that it is in being regenerated or born again that "all things become new." But, Craig denies this, leaving new thinking, new views, new direction, new purposes, etc., all left for a later experience of conversion. Paul did not say that only a change in the substance of the soul occurs in being regenerated, it being the only thing made new. He did not say a few things become new in the new birth, but most things become new later in conversion.
Notice how God commands the people to be regenerate, to make themselves a new heart and spirit. This is the very thing that Craig and the Hardshells deny to be a truth of Scripture! On Ezekiel 18: 31 Dr. Gill comments:
"...and make you a new heart and a new spirit; which the Lord elsewhere promises to give, and he does give to his own elect; (See Gill on Ezekiel 11:19); and if here to be understood of a regenerated heart and spirit, in which are new principles of light, life, and love, grace and holiness, it will not prove that it is in the power of man to make himself such a heart and spirit; since from God's command, to man's power, is no argument; and the design of the exhortation is to convince men of their want of such a heart; of the importance of it: and which, through the efficacious grace of God, may be a means of his people having it, seeing he has in covenant promised it to them." (commentary)
Notice that Gill says that such exhortations to men for them to make themselves new hearts and spirits, or to be regenerated, do not imply ability in them to do what he commands. He also says that the design of such an exhortation is to convince men of their want of such a heart and spirit and that such exhortations are means towards the creating of the new heart and spirit. There can be no other explanation of the passage. Thus, I call upon my Hardshell brothers to come forward and explain how their doctrinal presuppositions harmonize with God's exhorting the unregenerate to regeneration.
Now notice a similar verse. God said by Moses:
"Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked." (Deut. 10: 16)
On this verse Dr. Gill wrote:
"Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart - Content not yourselves with, nor put your confidence in outward circumcision of the flesh, but be concerned for the circumcision of the heart; for removing from that whatever is disagreeable to the Lord, even all carnality, sensuality, hypocrisy, and superfluity of naughtiness, and for having that put there which is well pleasing in his sight; and which though it is the work of God, and he only can do it and has promised it, yet such an exhortation is made to bring men to a sense of their need of it, and of the importance of it, and to show how agreeable it is to the Lord, and so to stir them up to seek unto him for it."
And notice how the same thing is said through Jeremiah.
"Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings." (Jer. 4: 4)
On this verse Dr. Gill wrote:
"...this is the true spiritual circumcision; and they that are possessed of it are the circumcision, the only truly circumcised persons; and they are such who have been pricked to the heart, and thoroughly convinced of sin; who have had the hardness of their hearts removed, and the impurity of it laid open to them; which they have beheld with shame and loathing, and have felt an inward pain on account of it; and who have been enabled to deny themselves, to renounce their own righteousness, and put off the body of the sins of the flesh: and though men are exhorted to do this themselves, yet elsewhere the Lord promises to do it for them, (Deuteronomy 30:6), and indeed it is purely his own work; or otherwise it could not he called, as it is, "circumcision without hands", and "whose praise is not of man, but of God", (Colossians 2:11) (Romans 2:29), and the reason of this exhortation, as before, is to convince those Jews, who were circumcised in the flesh, and rested and gloried in that, that their hearts were not circumcised, and that there was a necessity of it, and they in danger for want of it; as follows: lest my fury come forth like fire; to which the wrath of God is sometimes compared, (Nahum 1:6) and is sometimes signified by a furnace and lake of fire, even his eternal wrath and vengeance: and burn that none can quench it; such is the fire of divine wrath; it is unquenchable; it is everlasting, (Mark 9:43 Mark 9:44) (Matthew 3:12) (25:41): because of the evil of your doings; which are so provoking to the eyes of his glory; the sins of men are the fuel to the fire of his wrath, and cause it to burn to the lowest hell, without the least degree of mercy."
Dr. Gill gives the only explanation of these verses that is possible. Both Arminians and Calvinists agree with this explanation. The only ones who will deny it are the Pelagians and the Hardshells. But, I doubt we will ever see a Hardshell even attempt to deal with these verses. This is probably why they do not want to discuss or debate their views with others any more. If called upon in debate to harmonize these verses with their Hardshell aberrant views, how will they do it?
Now, let us look at some other verses that are really no different from the ones already looked at. Wrote Paul:
"Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light." (Eph. 5: 14)
How is the command to the spiritually dead to raise themselves from the dead any different from the commands for unregenerate sinners to circumcise their hearts and to make themselves new hearts and minds?
"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)
The Greek verb "repent" is from "metanoeō" and means to change one's mind, and in context generally means in regard to one's views about God, sin, and salvation. "Be converted" may be better translated as simply "convert." In other words, "repent and convert." The Greek verb for "convert" is "epistrephō" means to "turn." What is to be turned is the heart, mind, and conduct.
When one sees the truth about Ezekiel 18: 31, Deuteronomy 10: 16, Jeremiah 4: 4, then he will have no problem seeing that the command to repent (change your mind) and convert (turn away from your sins and to the Lord) are a command to become new creatures by calling upon the Lord.
"And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation." (Acts 2: 40)
On this verse Elder R. W. Thompson, writing in the "Primitive Monitor and Church Advocate" (Vol. 9, 1894) said: "This cannot mean eternal salvation..." (page 462 - see here)
But, he only asserts his case and gives no proof as to why the words "save yourselves" cannot have reference to final or eternal salvation. Would he also say that Ezekiel 18: 31, Deuteronomy 10: 16, Jeremiah 4: 4, and Ephesians 5: 14 cannot have reference to regeneration and eternal salvation? Why? Because his presupposition will not allow him to say so, his presupposition that says that men do not have a duty to circumcise their hearts to the Lord, to make them new hearts and minds, to raise themselves from the dead. Yet, clearly, we have shown how this presupposition is against the plain statements of Scripture.
Present day Hardshell elder Michael Gowens wrote:
"Old Baptists are virtually alone in their ability to reconcile apparently contradictory texts like Ephesians 2:8 (a text that teaches that salvation is not of ourselves) and Acts 2:40 (a text that exhorts us to save ourselves from this untoward generation), because they understand that the first verse has eternal ramifications and the second does not." ("Why I Am A Primitive Baptist" - see here)
Gowens thinks that Acts 2: 40 (save yourselves) cannot be the same salvation of Ephesians 2: 8 because one says that God does the saving and the other says that people save themselves. But, the contradiction is all in Gowen's head. There is no contradiction. By the logic of Gowens he must say that God does not do the saving of Acts 2: 40. Gowens is saying that he converted himself. God did not do it! He says this because his logic forces him to say it. When Gowens reads a text that says God saves a man, it excludes saying at the same time that a man saves himself. So, likewise, when a text says men save themselves, this excludes saying at the same time that God saved the man.
The Scriptures say that God hardened Pharaoh's heart, but it also says that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. Obviously it is possible for an action to be ascribed to both God and the sinner.
"And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple..." (Rev. 7: 14-15)
Notice that this being washed in the blood is said to be a work that the saved did for themselves. Yet, the Hardshells will not allow that such language is Scriptural. I am sure that they will try to go to work on such verses as these, trying to make them deal with only temporal deliverance, yet the task is an impossible one. Notice that the result of washing their robes in the blood of the Lamb is that they are in Heaven, before the throne. Come on, my Hardshell brethren, deal with these verses! Come teach us!
"And the Lord said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live." (Num. 21: 8)
Look and live! Hardshellism uprooted!
"Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David." (Isa. 55: 3)
Hear and live! Hardshellism uprooted!
"And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life." (John 5: 40)
Come to Christ for life! Hardshellism uprooted!
"And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth...That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us." (Acts 17: 26-27)
All men are commanded to repent and seek the Lord! Again, Hardshellism uprooted! Craig says men do not have such duties! And, what is the purpose for repenting and seeking the Lord? That they might "find him." What is regeneration but to find the Lord?
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
Perseverance or Regenerated Antichrists?
Much has been written of late on the subject of the perseverance of the saints, a truth upheld by the London Confession and condoned without “footnoting” by those who assembled at Fulton, Kentucky in 1900. There are very clear verses in scripture which testify to this truth, and these passages trump any logical reasoning on the part of the objector.
I would like in this posting though to really press the issue by demonstrating a most terrible consequence of not believing this doctrine. In no other bible passage of which I’m aware is the question of the saints’ perseverance set in such a context where the espousal of preservation without perseverance would lead to an absolutely horrific conclusion, one which would cause the Christian community to shudder.
1 John 2:18-20 states:
”Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.”
The Apostle here tells us that there were some who continued with them for a season, though at some point ceased their fellowship. And mark this. They are described in no casual language, but are said to be antichrists! Now at this point the Hardshell mind must make a critical decision, and that is to either 1) affirm the perseverance of the saints with those who “went out” being imposters or 2) admit to the existence of regenerated antichrists who were preserved but did not persevere!
Antichrists. Part of the redeemed family of God? Antichrists. New creatures in Christ? I wonder what the general Christian community feels about such a notion; that is, if they are able to pick their jaw off the floor. The typical Hardshell who opposes perseverance would want to assert at this point that John is distinguishing the regenerate elect who continue in the faith from those among them who do not. To his relief, though, the cliché could be said of them both: “They were already saved eternally.” That such is not the case, though, is proven by the fact that John contrasts those who continued not with those who had an unction from the Holy Ghost (v.20). The former had no such unction, meaning they were not regenerated. Now unless the Holy Spirit has imparted an unction only to those elect who persevere but not to those who don’t, or if there are “two kinds” of unctions (an oft-used Hardshell argumentation) it is clear that those who went out from the apostles were not born again.
In this passage it is either perseverance being taught or regenerated antichrists under consideration. The question is which one.
What say ye?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)